CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sE96D75D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:50.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFF093797 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 6 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 52517/22 Cristinel FOTA against Romania lodged on 3 November 2022 communicated on 18 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, including his conviction on appeal following an acquittal at first instance, and the alleged inability to examine key prosecution witnesses (L.A.D. and P.C.R.) in person before the trial court. On 14 February 2017 the public prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) opened an in   rem criminal investigation for the offence of trafficking in minors (Article   211 §§ 1 and 2 a) and Article 210 § 1 a) of the Criminal Code). On 11 March 2019 the prosecutor ordered the extension of the criminal investigation in respect of trafficking in persons (Article 210 § 1 a) and b) of the Criminal Code). On the same date, the prosecutor further directed, under Article   305 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the investigation be continued against the applicant (“ efectuarea în continuare a urmăririi penale față de suspect ”) in relation to the above-mentioned offences and that the criminal action be set in motion against him (“ punerea în mișcare a acțiunii penale ”). On 13 March 2019 the applicant was informed, in the presence of his lawyer, of the measures ordered on 11 March 2019 and, on the same occasion, heard as a suspect (“ inculpat ”) in the case. On 17 April 2019 an indictment was issued against the applicant on one count of trafficking in minors (L.A.D.), two counts of trafficking in human beings (P.C.R. and B.N.D.), and one count of money laundering. The charges concerned allegations that, between 2007 and 2016, the applicant, together with a co-accused, had recruited L.A.D., P.C.R. and B.N.D. and had transported them to Italy for the purpose of prostitution. On 4 July 2019, following an application lodged by the applicant, the Dolj District Court (“the District Court”), sitting in a pre-trial judge formation (“ cameră preliminară” ), identified several procedural irregularities in the criminal investigation conducted against him and held that the applicant’s defence rights had been infringed. Consequently, the District Court annulled the investigative measures carried out in the course of the investigation and excluded all evidence obtained as a result thereof. It further ordered the prosecution to remedy the identified irregularities and to indicate whether it intended to uphold the indictment or to request the return of the case file. According to the information available in the file, it would appear that the prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision of 4 July 2019. However, the outcome of that appeal remains unclear. On 9 August 2021 the District Court, as a first-instance court, acquitted the applicant on all charges under Article 16 § 1 b) and c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant had committed the above-mentioned offences. On 8 July 2022 the Craiova Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), on an appeal by the prosecution, overturned the acquittal and convicted the applicant of trafficking in minors in respect of L.A.D, trafficking in persons in respect of P.C.R., and reclassified the charge concerning B.N.D. as pimping, for which he was also convicted. It maintained the acquittal at first instance in respect of the money laundering charge. The applicant was sentenced to six years and eight months’ imprisonment. Relying on the evidence already before the first-instance court, the Court   of Appeal heard some of the witnesses in the case but did not hear L.A.D., P.C.R. or B.N.D. As regards those three witnesses, it held that the first-instance court had wrongly rejected the testimonies of L.A.D. and P.C.R. on credibility grounds. Regarding the fact that L.A.D. and P.C.R. had not been heard either at first instance or on appeal, the Court of Appeal found that their absence – due to their being abroad and of unknown whereabouts – did not affect the probative value of the statements they had given during the criminal investigation stage. It considered that those statements were consistent, detailed, and mutually corroborative, and supported by circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal further found that all reasonable efforts had been made, both by it and by the first-instance court, to secure L.A.D. and P.C.R.’s attendance and that the applicant had had the opportunity to contest their credibility, notwithstanding their absence from the courtroom. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been convicted on appeal on the basis of the same evidence that had led to his acquittal at first instance. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (c), the applicant also complained that his defence rights had been breached during the criminal investigation. In particular, he alleged that he had not been promptly and adequately informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as the communication of the charges on 13 March 2019 was extremely brief and immediately followed by his questioning as an accused in the case. He further argued that he had not been afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, given that the charges were brought against him for the first time on that date and that he had no meaningful opportunity to prepare or consult the criminal file before being questioned. Under Article 6 § 3 (d), he further complained that the domestic courts had relied on the statements given by L.A.D. and P.C.R. during the criminal investigation stage, and that he had not been afforded an effective opportunity to examine or have them examined at any stage of the proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §§   1   (a) ‑ (c) of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Having regard to the manner in which the criminal investigation was conducted, including, in particular, the measures ordered on 11 and 13   March 2019 by the prosecutor, was the applicant informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and was he afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see, among others, Alexandru-Radu Luca v.   Romania , no.   20837/18, §§   56-57, 14 June 2022)?   (b)     In the light of the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, did the applicant benefit from the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing throughout the criminal proceedings?   (c)     Did the Craiova Court of Appeal directly examine the evidence in the case and/or did it rely on newly administered evidence to justify the applicant’s conviction following his acquittal at first instance (compare with Găitănaru v. Romania , no. 26082/05, §§   26 ‑ 35, 26   June 2012   and Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland , no. 38797/17, §§   34-44, 16 July 2019)?   2     Has the applicant’s right to a fair trial, including the right to examine or to have examined witnesses against him, under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, been breached in that he was not given an opportunity, at any stage of the proceedings, to examine L.A.D. and P.C.R.?   In particular, having regard to the principles established by the Court in the cases of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011 and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 31, ECHR   2015:   (a)     Was L.A.D. and P.C.R.’s absence from the trial justified by a good reason, and did the domestic authorities take all reasonable steps to secure the attendance of these witnesses (see, in particular, Schatschaschwili , cited above, §§ 120-21 and Vasile Pruteanu and Others v. Romania , no. 9308/18, §§ 63-67, 14 January 2025)?   (b)     Was the applicant’s conviction based solely or to a decisive or significant extent on L.A.D. and P.C.R.’s statements given during the criminal investigation?   (c)     Have there been sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the difficulties caused to the defence by its inability to question L.A.D. and P.C.R.? In particular, what counterbalancing measures were taken by the domestic prosecution authorities and the domestic courts to safeguard the applicant’s defence rights?   The parties are invited to provide a complete copy of the criminal file, including the investigation stage and the proceedings before the preliminary chamber, the first-instance and the appeal courts.