CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17811/22 Dragoş DRAGOMIR against Romania lodged on 25 March 2022 communicated on 24 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged excessive duration of a seizure measure imposed against all immovable and movable property owned by the applicant in the context of an investigation of money laundering that started against him in October 2016 and is still pending. Several complaints concerning the proportionality and duration of the order lodged by the applicant with the prosecutor were rejected as manifestly ill-founded. On 3   October 2019 the Constanta County Court rejected as ill-founded a complaint in respect of the alleged excessive duration of the order lodged by the applicant under Article 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a legal provision allowing for complaints against the lawfulness or the enforcement of the seizure order. In 2021 the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to include provisions in Article 250 2 requiring the prosecutor or the court to verify periodically – during the investigation or trial respectively – whether reasons for precautionary measures (such as seizure of assets) still existed. On the basis of that provision, on 16 August 2021 and 7 February 2022 the prosecutor confirmed the seizure measure ordered in respect of the applicant’s assets. The applicant’s complaint against the latter’s decision was rejected by the Constanta County Court on 11 February 2022 with a similar reasoning as the one provided in its decision of 3 October 2019. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complained that the seizure of all his assets had been a disproportionate measure that had lasted an excessive period in the absence of effective legal safeguards.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, stemming from the seizure of his assets?   2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant given the time during which the measure has been applied and the fact that it concerned all assets owned by the applicant (see Călin v.   Romania , no. 54491/14, § 84, 5 April 2022)?   3.     Furthermore, bearing in mind the procedural obligations contained in Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and the State’s obligation to ensure in its domestic legal order that the right to property is sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies enable the victims of an infringement in this respect to assert their rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v.   Romania , no. 38072/11, § 78, 21 July 2020), did the applicant have a reasonable opportunity to present his case to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measure that allegedly infringed his right of property?   In particular, in the light of the decisions of the Constanta County Court of 3 October 2019 and 11 February 2022, were the procedures set forth by Articles   250 and 250 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, effective avenues for the applicant to challenge the proportionality and duration of the seizure order?   Concerning allegations of a prolonged seizure of assets, as in the present case, does the legal framework provide persons concerned with other avenues to vindicate their property rights, for example by seeking compensation in civil proceedings ( acțiunea în răspundere civilă delictuală )? If so, were these avenues open to the applicant and at what stage in respect of the criminal proceedings? The parties are invited to support their arguments in respect of the above questions with examples of relevant case-law of the domestic courts, if any.