CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s1E268020 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; line-height:200% } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 25 July 2022 and 3 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 74061/17 Ileana ROȘU against Romania lodged on 10 October 2017 Communicated on 8 July 2022 and 11 February 2025   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Subject matter of the case and Questions to the parties , which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Bearing in mind the procedural obligations contained in Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, did the applicant have a reasonable opportunity to present her cause to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measures infringing her right of property? In particular, did the legal framework in force at the relevant time allow for interested parties such as the co-owners of assets seized for the purpose of recovery of the damage caused by the crime under investigation or trial (other than the suspect or accused) to participate to the criminal proceedings in order to challenge the seizure and its duration? If yes, was this possibility open to the applicant?   2.     In a situation where joint ownership of the assets subject to seizure is claimed by a person, such as the applicant, who was not a party to the criminal proceedings, did the legal framework in force at the relevant time allow for other possibilities for such a person to vindicate his/her property rights, for example in civil proceedings for separation of jointly owned property ( partaj )? If so, were these avenues open to the applicant to this end? Could such proceedings lead to a verification by the courts of the necessity to maintain the seizure of the applicant’s share of the property throughout the duration of that measure?   The Government is asked to support their arguments in respect of the above two questions with examples of relevant case-law of the domestic courts.