Information Note on the Court\u2019s case-law 224
\nDecember 2018<\/p>\n
C\u0103t\u0103niciu v. Romania (dec.)<\/strong> – 22717\/17<\/p>\n Decision 6.12.2018 [Section IV] Judicial proceedings challenging a public finding of a conflict of interests in elected office: Article 6 not applicable<\/p>\n Facts \u2013 In 2009, in her capacity as a municipal councillor, the applicant was involved in a decision concerning the granting of a lease to a company which she had represented as a lawyer in proceedings against the municipality. In 2013 the National Integrity Agency found, in a public evaluation report accompanied by press releases, that the applicant\u2019s involvement in the aforementioned decision had effectively put her in a position of conflict of interests. The applicant challenged the lawfulness of that report in the courts, without success.<\/p>\n In the meantime, the applicant was elected as a Member of Parliament. At the request of the National Integrity Agency, the permanent bureau of the Chamber of Deputies ordered a temporary reduction in her allowance. However, that disciplinary penalty was eventually set aside by the Chamber itself.<\/p>\n Law \u2013 Article 6: The applicant alleged a number of shortcomings in the judicial proceedings in which the finding of a conflict of interests was upheld.<\/p>\n While the complaint submitted related only to the above-mentioned proceedings, the Court also made reference to the subsequent disciplinary case, in so far as it had resulted directly from the first set of proceedings (and despite the fact that the applicant had obtained a favourable outcome without the need for a court ruling).<\/p>\n (a) Civil limb \u2013 The proceedings in question had concerned the issue whether the applicant, while she had been a municipal councillor, had been in a position of conflict of interests. While it was clear that the underlying dispute had been \u201cgenuine and serious\u201d, the Court took the view that it had not concerned \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d.<\/p>\n The applicant\u2019s duty not to place herself in a position of conflict of interests related to conduct in political office. A duty of this nature was clearly political rather than \u201ccivil\u201d.<\/p>\n As to the fact that the applicant had consequently faced a risk, in her capacity as a Member of Parliament, of having her parliamentary allowance reduced, this pecuniary aspect did not suffice to make the proceedings in issue \u201ccivil\u201d ones.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the case did not come within the scope of application of the civil limb of Article 6.<\/p>\n (b) Criminal limb \u2013 The criminal limb of Article 6 was likewise inapplicable in view of the three criteria established in the judgment in Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (5100\/71 et al., 8 June 1976), namely:<\/p>\n (i) the legal classification in domestic law (although this criterion was not decisive): while it was true that the notion of \u201cconflict of interests\u201d was also punishable under the Criminal Code, the proceedings against the applicant had not been brought on that basis, but rather under Law no. 176\/2010 on ethical standards in public life, which classified the acts in question as a \u201cdisciplinary offence\u201d;<\/p>\n (ii) the nature of the offence: the provisions prohibiting a conflict of interests applied only to a limited group with a special status (persons holding public office or performing public duties);<\/p>\n (iii) the nature and severity of the penalty that the applicant risked incurring: at most, a 10% reduction in her parliamentary allowance for a three-month period.<\/p>\n Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).<\/p>\n
\nArticle 6<\/strong>
\nAdministrative proceedings<\/strong>
\nArticle 6-1<\/strong>
\nCivil rights and obligations<\/strong>
\nCriminal charge<\/strong><\/p>\n