CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4EF26575 { height:38.65pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCD2FEC77 { height:215.85pt } .sA4CB3B4A { height:180.4pt } .s2BC74500 { height:31.6pt } .s1024EEE1 { height:159.15pt } .sA3D764EC { height:74.1pt } .s36EB86CB { height:145pt } .sFE1B28E { height:130.8pt } .s1024F008 { height:152.15pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 10 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 12825/19 Margareta CRĂCIUN against Romania and 10 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the applicants’ complaints of lack of foreseeability and certainty of the provisions governing the interruption of the course of the statute of limitations due to the adoption of two decisions by the Constitutional Court declaring unconstitutional partly and then entirely the said provisions as set forth by the new Criminal Code. More specifically, during the criminal trial against the applicants, parts of Article 155 of the new Criminal Code, listing the conditions for the interruption of the course of the statute of limitations, had been declared unconstitutional by decision no.   297 of 26   April 2018 of the Constitutional Court . The applicants allege that, as a result of the above-mentioned Constitutional Court decision, the criminal law no longer provided for the interruption of the course of the limitation period and so the criminal proceedings against them should have been discontinued on account of having been time-barred. However, in the applicants’ cases the courts either decided to interpret the decision of the Constitutional Court and to consider that it did not apply in the manner alleged by the applicants or established that the more lenient criminal law for the applicants was the former Criminal Code, that had not been concerned by the Constitutional Court decision. Subsequently, by decision no. 358 of 26 May 2022, the Constitutional Court clarified its previous decision in a manner contrary to the interpretation given by the courts in the applicants’ cases. Following the adoption of the second Constitutional Court’s decision, some applicants (applications nos. 10645/23, 16294/23, 19251/23 and   30912/23) have lodged extraordinary appeals ( recurs în casație , contestație ȋn anulare, revizuire ) seeking the revision of their previous convictions. However, these appeals have been dismissed as inadmissible. All applicants complain that their conviction breached their rights under Article   7 of the Convention due to the lack of foreseeability and certainty of the law that was applied in their cases and led to their conviction. The applicants in applications nos.   16294/23 and 30912/23 also complain under Article   13 of a lack of an effective remedy for their complaint in connection with the lack of foreseeability and certainty of the above-mentioned provision governing the statute of limitations, due to the rejection of their extraordinary appeals. The applicant in application no. 7911/21 also complains that he was tried twice for the same offence in breach of Article 4   §   1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention because, prior to his conviction for tax evasion on 17 July 2020, a decision to close an investigation for embezzlement in connection with the same facts had been adopted by the prosecutor and confirmed by a court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES I.     Questions in respect of all applications:   1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, was an extraordinary appeal ( recurs în casație , contestație ȋn anulare, revizuire ) an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 7 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decisions nos.   297/2018 and   358/2022, was the text of Article 155 of the Criminal Code applicable in the applicants’ cases clear and foreseeable to the applicants?   In particular, what were the effects of the Constitutional Court decisions nos. 297/2018 and 358/2022 in the applicants’ cases? Have the applicants been convicted for acts which were no longer punishable owing to the lapse of the statute of limitations in respect of the relevant offences in their cases?   If so, did the applicants’ conviction amount to a violation of Article   7   §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Antia and Khupenia v.   Georgia , no.   7523/10, § 39-43, 18 June 2020)?   II.     Additional question in respect of applications nos. 16294/23 and   30912/23:   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 7, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? III.     Additional questions in respect of application no. 7911/21: 4.     Has the applicant been tried twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibited by Article 4   §   1 of Protocol No.   7?   In particular, did the proceedings finalised with the judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 2 April 2014 concern identical facts or facts which were substantially the same as those for which the applicant had been convicted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 17 July 2020?   5.     If so, could the judgment of 2 April 2014 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal be considered a “final” decision “acquitting” the applicant? In the affirmative, did the proceedings finalised on 17 July 2020 fall within the exceptions envisaged by Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7 (see Mihalache v.   Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 81-139, 8 July 2019)?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant/Year of Birth/Place of Residence/Nationality Final domestic decision 1. 12825/19 25/02/2019 Margareta CRĂCIUN 1970 Văleni Romanian 23 January 2019 Pitești Court of Appeal 2. 12881/19 25/02/2019 Vasile CRĂCIUN 1959 Văleni Romanian 23 January 2019 Pitești Court of Appeal 3. 7911/21 15/01/2021 Aurel-Octavian ROGOZEA 1980 Târgoviște Romanian 17 July 2020 High Court of Cassation and Justice (notified to the applicant on 23   November 2020) 4. 16267/21 17/03/2021 Miclăuș TRAIAN 1970 Bucharest Romanian   Represented by Manuela DE RAVEL D’ESCLAPON, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg 18 September 2020 Bucharest Court of Appeal 5. 49810/21 21/09/2021 Costel NICOARĂ 1968 Tulnici Romanian   Represented by Matei BRATU, a lawyer practising in Focșani 19 January 2021 Galați Court of Appeal (notified to the applicant on 3 June 2021) 6. 53362/21 15/10/2021 Ana-Ruxandra STANCIU 1980 Ploiești Romanian   Represented by Dan Paul COMAN, a lawyer practising in Ploiești 4 May 2021 Ploiești Court of Appeal 7. 55964/21 22/10/2021 Iulian CRISTIAN 1954 Rădulești Romanian   Represented by Matei BRATU, a lawyer practising in Focșani 25 February 2021 Galați Court of Appeal (notified to the applicant on 26   April 2021) 8. 10645/23 02/03/2023 Niculae ZANFIR 1965 Ciorogârla Romanian 24 November 2021 Bucharest Court of Appeal   Decision on extraordinary appeal: 4   November 2022 Bucharest Court of Appeal 9. 16294/23 05/04/2023 Stelu PLATON 1954 Cluj-Napoca Romanian   Represented by Constantin Eugen IORDĂCHESCU, a lawyer practising in Cluj ‑ Napoca   7 June 2022 Bacău Court of Appeal   Decision on extraordinary appeal: 26   January 2023 Bacău Court of Appeal 10. 19251/23 26/04/2023 Decebal-Silviu DRAGHIȘ 1971 Bragadiru Romanian   Represented by Cătălin BREAZU, a lawyer practising in Bucharest 24 November 2021 High Court of Cassation and Justice   Decision on extraordinary appeal: 26   January 2023 High   Court of Cassation and Justice 11. 30912/23 27/07/2023 Ioan COVA 1955 Timișoara Romanian   Represented by Andrei Mihnea GANE, a lawyer practising in Bucharest 24 July 2020 Timișoara Court of Appeal   Decisions on extraordinary appeals: 14   November 2022 Timișoara Court of Appeal ( contestație în anulare ) 28 March 2023 High Court of Cassation and Justice ( recurs în casație )