FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF CERNEA v. ROMANIA
\n(Application no. 7486\/12)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 December 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Cernea v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President, Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 7486\/12) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Romanian national, Mr Vasile Gavril Cernea (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 3\u00a0November 2011.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr M.C. Jida, a lawyer practising in Oradea. The Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant allegedunder Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention thatthe criminal proceedings opened against him had been unreasonably lengthy. Relying, in substance, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant alleged that he had incurred substantial losses because he had been unable to dispose freely of his property following the seizure of his assets.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 February 2016notice of theabove-mentioned complaintswasgiven to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Oradea.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 November 2000 the prosecutor\u2019s office attached to the Bihor County Court (\u201cthe prosecutor\u2019s office\u201d)discontinued thecriminal proceedings which it had opened against the applicant on 24 November 2000 for bribe taking.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 January 2001 the prosecutor\u2019s office attached to the Bihor Court of Appealquashed the above-mentioned decision of its own motionand ordered that the proceedings against the applicant be reopened.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 February and 11 June 2001, respectively, the prosecutor\u2019s office reopened the criminal proceedings against the applicant for bribe taking andopened criminal proceedings against him for abuse of office.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 July 2002 the State Agency for Capitalisation of Banking Assets (Autoritate Pentru Valorificarea Activelor Bancare \u2013 \u201cAVAB\u201d) joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant as a civil party. It sought the recovery of 27,863,805,105 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 1,758,753 US dollars (USD)),the damage that it had allegedlyincurred as a result of the applicant\u2019s abuse of office.<\/p>\n 10. On 16 August 2002 theprosecutor\u2019s office ordered the seizureofthe applicant\u2019s movable and immovable assets up to the value of the damage allegedly incurred by AVAB. The order was enforced by the Bihor Police Department on 19 December 2002 by seizing part of the immovable properties owned jointly by the applicant and his wife, in particular four plots of intra muros agricultural land, a home and annexes.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 August 2002 the prosecutor\u2019s office indicted the applicant for bribe taking and for abuse of office and sent his case for trial.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0First round of court proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Between 7 October 2002 and6 February 2006the Bihor County Court (\u201cthe County Court\u201d)adjourned the proceedings twenty-four times to allow the parties to prepare their defence, for the court to summon the parties and the witnesses, to hear evidence,and for deliberations. Also, at a hearing on 10 February 2003, the court dismissed the applicant\u2019s challenge against the order of 16 August 2002 on the grounds that the measure was temporary and had been enforced correctly. This decision was upheld by the Oradea Court of Appeal (\u201cthe Court of Appeal\u201d) on 11 March 2003 following an appeal by the applicant.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 February 2006 theCounty Court examined the applicant\u2019s case on the merits and acquitted him of abuse of office. However, it held that the applicant had to pay AVAB the damages it claimed because AVAB had suffered damageas a result of his actions. Consequently,the court maintained the measure imposed on the applicant\u2019s assets. It also convicted the applicantof bribe taking and sentenced him tothree years\u2019 imprisonment, suspended.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Between 20 June and 11 July 2006 theCourt of Appeal adjourned the proceedings twice to allow the parties to prepare their cases.On 19\u00a0September 2006 the courtquashed the judgment of 13 February 2006 and referred the case back to the first-instance court for re-examinationon procedural grounds.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Second round of court proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Between 30 November 2006 and 1 April 2010 the County Court adjourned the proceedingsthirty-twotimes to allow the parties to prepare their defence, for the court-assigned expert to produce two expert reports, and for the court to summon the parties and the witnesses, to hear evidence,for deliberations, and to allow the judges to exercise their right to strike. Also, at a hearing on 4 June 2007 thecourt adjourned the examination of the applicant\u2019s request for the measure imposed on his assets to be lifted pending the court\u2019s determinationof the case.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 April 2010 theCounty Court examined the applicant\u2019s case on the merits, acquitted him of abuse of office and dismissed AVAB\u2019s civil claim. Consequently, it lifted the seizure measure from his assets. The court convicted the applicant, however,of receiving bribes and gave him a suspended sentence of three years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantand AVAB appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Between 21 September and 16 November 2010 theCourt of Appeal adjourned the proceedings twice to allow the parties to prepare their cases, to summon them, and for the court to deliberate.On 23 November 2010 the court dismissed the appeals of the parties and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and AVAB appealed on points of fact and law against the judgment to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (\u201cthe Court of Cassation\u201d).<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Between 23 February and 20 April 2011 theCourt of Cassation adjourned the proceedings once to allow the applicant to prepare hiscase.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0By a final judgment of 4 May 2011 theCourt of Cassationallowed the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of fact andlaw in part. It held that he was guilty of bribe taking, buthis criminal liability for that offence had become time-barred. The court upheld the remaining parts of the judgments delivered by the lower courts.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 March 2012, once the applicant had submitted certified copies of all the courts\u2019 judgments, the Bihor Land and Immovable Property Register removed the annotation concerning the seizure measure imposed on his immovable property from the above-mentioned register, which had prevented him from freely disposing of it.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n