CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2024

.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 17 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58055/21 Lucian Adrian BONCU against Romania lodged on 23 November 2021 communicated on 28 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant in relation to drug trafficking and violent offences. By a decision of 25 March 2021, the Timiș District Court convicted the applicant of several drug-related offences and of organising a criminal group and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Timișoara Court of Appeal, by a final decision of 30 July 2021, acquitted the applicant of the charge of organising a criminal group, upheld the remainder of the conviction inflicted at first instance and sentenced the applicant to eight years’ and one month imprisonment. The applicant complained about the lack of impartiality of the judge sitting in a single judge formation at the Timiș District Court, because in November 2020, the judge allegedly made prejudicial remarks about the applicant during an interview for a television documentary concerning the fight against drug trafficking in Timișoara. In March 2021, following five unsuccessful applications to recuse the judge, that judge heard the case and convicted the applicant. By an interlocutory judgement of 11 November 2020, the Timișoara Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s submission alleging the judge’s lack of impartiality. The Court of Appeal held that the comments made by the judge were of a general nature and did not refer explicitly to the applicant. Therefore, the court did not find sufficient grounds for a reasonable suspicion as to the lack of impartiality of that judge. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the District Court’s lack of impartiality because of the alleged prejudicial remarks made by the judge in the television documentary mentioned above. Under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to be presumed innocent was breached when the same judge allowed a television channel to make a documentary about him and his co-accused and gave access to the television crew inside the court, including the hearing room, where the crew filmed the applicant handcuffed. He further alleges that judge’s decision to have several special gendarmerie forces attending the hearings created the impression of an increased dangerousness on the part of the applicant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the Timiș District Court, which dealt with the applicant’s case at first instance, impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   The parties are invited to submit a transcript of the television documentary concerning the applicant.