CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 59205/21 and 59968/21 Georgeta CONSTANTINESCU against Romania and Ovidiu PRISECARI against Romania lodged on 26 November 2021 communicated on 2 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the confiscation of the applicants’ assets ordered by a court in special proceedings under Article 549 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that governs confiscation after closure of the criminal investigation. The criminal investigation opened against the applicants for bribery and money laundering was closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Subsequently, the prosecutor had initiated the special proceedings seeking confiscation of the money that allegedly were the object of the crimes under investigation. In these proceedings, the courts at two levels of jurisdiction found that there was a reasonable suspicion that certain amounts held by the applicants (over two million euros) were proceeds of bribery and money laundering and ordered their confiscation. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were deprived of a fair trial because in the special proceedings in question the criminal sanction was ordered against them depriving them of their property in the absence of an examination of the legal requirements for ordering the confiscation of their assets, since there was no finding that a criminal offence had been committed and their guilt for that criminal offence. Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention the applicants also complain that the confiscation of their assets violated the principle of the presumption of innocence. Lastly, they complain under Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention that they had not been properly informed of the nature of the charges against them because neither the prosecutor, when closing the investigation, nor the court deciding on the confiscation, had identified the exact manner in which they had committed the crimes that triggered the confiscation order. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article   6 §   1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present cases under its civil or criminal head?   2.     Did the special proceedings under Article 549 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure respect the fair trial guarantees, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, did the applicants have the possibility to effectively participate in the proceedings in which the confiscation measure had been ordered, taking into account their allegations that the courts that ordered the confiscation of their assets had not examined their arguments as regards the absence of the legal requirements for such an order and had not duly reasoned their decisions, and that, in the absence of such an examination and of an adequate reasoning, they were not informed of the elements that triggered the confiscation of their assets and could not prepare their defence?   3.     Is Article 6 § 2 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present cases?   If so, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present cases (see, mutatis   mutandis , Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) , no.   36013/13, §§   30-42, 8 October 2024; and Lagardère v. France , no. 18851/07, §§   80-88, 12   April 2012)?   4.     Should Article 6 of the Convention be applicable to this case under its criminal limb, were the applicants informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, as required by Article   6   §   3   (a) of the Convention?   5.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, stemming from the confiscation of their assets in the special proceedings under Article   549 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?