CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 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 } Published on 24 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 81708/17 Iulian-Gabriel-Nicu MUNTEANU against Romania lodged on 24 November 2017 communicated on 4 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant by the authorities for trafficking minors. By a final judgment of 14   July 2016 (available to the applicant on 26 May 2017) the Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) examined the applicant’s case on the merits in summary proceedings, convicted the applicant of trafficking minors and sentenced him to 4 years imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and violated his right of defence. In particular, the trial courts had examined his case in summary proceedings and had therefore convicted the applicant on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating authorities without hearing directly the witnesses in the case, the victim of the applicant’s alleged offences or other relevant witnesses requested by the applicant. The courts, as acknowledged also by the prosecution, had misinterpreted his statement taken by the first-instance court and had wrongly concluded that it had been a full acknowledgement of his guilt and of the facts imputed to him. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had refused to give effect to the practice of the Hight Court of Cassation and Justice in similar circumstances and to reopen the first ‑ instance proceeding, by relying on the tenuous arguments that the reopening of the first-instance proceedings would have worsened the applicant’s position in his own appeal and that in any event no legal provisions permitted the applicant to retract his request to have his case examined in summary proceedings. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention the applicant complained that the above-mentioned manner in which the Court of Appeal had examined his case and had denied his request to have his case examined in ordinary proceedings had deprived him of a right of appeal in criminal matters.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charge against him in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts misinterpret the applicant’s statement to be a full acknowledgement of his guilt and of the facts imputed to him and did the Court of Appeal refuse to give effect to the practice of the Hight Court of Cassation and Justice in similar circumstances and to reopen the first-instance proceeding? If so, was the applicant’s right of defence affected in such a way as to render the criminal proceedings against him unfair by the fact that the trial courts had examined his case in summary proceedings and therefore convicted him on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating authorities without hearing witnesses or the victim of the alleged offences directly?   2.     Was the applicant afforded the right of appeal in a way compatible with the requirements of Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention given the alleged manner in which the Court of Appeal had examined his case and had denied his request to have his case examined in ordinary proceedings?