CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 18376/20 Samuel GAL against Romania lodged on 8 April 2020 communicated on 21 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant to rebut the presumption of fact and law of a police report about a breach of the national regulations concerning traffic on public roads. On 9 January 2019 the applicant, a professional driver at the relevant time, was stopped in traffic by the police and given a breathalyser test. As the results of the test revealed a concentration of 0.35 mg/l alcohol in expired air, the applicant was sanctioned for drunk driving to a 1,305 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 275 euros) fine and suspension of his driving licence for a period of 3 months. As the applicant disagreed with the accusation of drunk driving he underwent a blood test at the nearest hospital, 55 minutes after the breathalyser test. He was accompanied by a police officer to the hospital. The results of the blood test revealed a zero-alcohol concentration in the applicant’s blood. On 23 May 2019 the Zalău District Court dismissed the applicant’s action for annulment of the offence report as unsubstantiated. By a final decision of 5 November 2019, the Sălaj County Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded. It relied entirely on the result of the breathalyser test and disregarded the conclusions of the blood test. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings, claiming that the domestic courts dismissed the conclusions of the blood test without providing adequate and sufficient reasons for their decisions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Nicoleta Gheorghe v. Romania , no. 23470/05, §§ 25-26, 3 April 2012)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts provide adequate and sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s challenge to the police report (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017; and Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no. 13185/07, §§ 59-60, 8 November 2018)?