CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 64703/19 Gheorghe SANDU against Romania lodged on 4 December 2019 communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a forest ranger and was required to possess a certificate of security agent (“security certificate”) to be able to work. The application concerns the decision of the national authorities to withdraw the applicant’s security certificate because a criminal investigation had been opened against him by the public prosecutor’s office on charges of work-related offences committed by him, namely accessory to unlawful tree cutting and steeling trees cut. By a final judgment of 4 June 2019 the Iași Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s challenge against the withdrawal of his security certificate holding that, inter alia , the results of the investigation conducted by the prosecutor’s office until then entailed that the applicant had committed the work-related offences. On 13 December 2023 the prosecutor’s office closed the investigation against the applicant because of lack of evidence that he committed the offences. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention the applicant alleged that the administrative proceedings were unfair because the Court of Appeal had violated his right to be presumed innocent. In particular, the court in question found the applicant guilty of the offences of which he was charged even though the criminal proceedings against him were still pending before the relevant authorities at the time.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s rights to be presumed innocent and to a fair hearing protected by Article 6 §§ 1 and   2 of the Convention respected in the present case given that the Iași Court of Appeal found in its final judgment of 4 June 2019 that the applicant committed the offences of which he was charged?