<<

Last updated: July 2021 Ratified the European Convention on Rights in 1994

National : Iulia Antoanella Motoc (2013-2022) ’ CVs are available on the ECHR Internet site Previous Judge: Marin Voicu (1996-1998), Corneliu Bîrsan (1998-2013) List of judges of the Court since 1959

The Court dealt with 3,308 applications concerning Romania in 2020, of which 2,960 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 82 judgments (concerning 348 applications), 64 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Applications Applications pending before the court 2019 2020 2021* processed in on 01/07/2021

Applications allocated 2651 2991 1647 Applications pending before a judicial 6675 to a judicial formation formation: Communicated to the 1204 1171 531 Single Judge 383 Government Applications decided: 3261 3308 2518 Committee (3 Judges) 5768

- Declared inadmissible 2403 2333 1948 Chamber (7 Judges) 524 or struck out (Single Judge) Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 0 - Declared inadmissible 605 620 452 or struck out (Committee) - Declared inadmissible 8 7 1 or struck out Romania and ... (Chamber) - Decided by judgment 245 348 117 The Registry The task of the Registry is to provide * to July 2021 For information about the Court’s judicial formations legal and administrative support to the and procedure, see the ECHR internet site. Court in the exercise of its judicial Statistics on interim measures can be found here. functions. It is composed of lawyers, administrative and technical staff and translators. There are currently 624 Registry staff members.

Press country profile – Romania

respect for his private life and Noteworthy cases, judgments correspondence. Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for delivered private and family life, the home and correspondence) Grand Chamber Greek Catholic Parish and Muhammad and Muhammad v. Others v. Romania Romania 29.11.2016 15.10.2020 The case concerned a request for the The case concerned proceedings as a result restitution of a place of worship that had of which the applicants, Pakistani nationals belonged to the Greek Catholic Church and living lawfully in Romania, were declared was transferred during the totalitarian undesirable and deported. regime to the ownership of the Orthodox Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 Church. (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion No violation of the Article 6 § 1 in respect of aliens) of the right of access to a court Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Mihalache v. Romania breach of the principle of legal certainty 08.07.2019 Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the In this case, Mr Mihalache submitted that length of the proceedings he had been prosecuted twice for having No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of refused to undergo a blood test in the discrimination) taken together with Article 6 framework of a police control with a view to § 1 in respect of the applicants’ right of determining his alcohol blood level. access to a court in comparison with the Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right Orthodox parish not to be tried or punished twice) The Court further held that that it was not Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of 25.06.2019 discrimination) taken together with Article 6 The case concerned a judge who had been § 1 in so far as it concerned an alleged severely injured in a car accident in 2004. difference of treatment compared with The criminal proceedings, which Mr Tănase other Greek Catholic parishes. had joined as a civil party, were discontinued eight years later with a Gherghina v. Romania decision not to prosecute the other two 18.09.2015 drivers involved in the accident. The case concerned a disabled student’s Before the Court, Mr Tănase complained in complaint that he was not able to continue particular that the criminal investigation his university studies owing to a lack of had been ineffective and too long and that suitable facilities on the premises of the it had been impossible for him to obtain a universities where he attended courses. decision on his civil claim. Case declared inadmissible for No violation of Article 2 as concerned the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. investigation into the accident The Court, reiterating that those who wish No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to complain to the European Court against to court) a State have to first use remedies provided No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair for by the national legal system, found that trial within a reasonable time) Mr Gherghina’s reasons for not pursuing Bărbulescu v. Romania certain legal remedies with regard to his complaints had not been convincing. 05.09.2017 The case concerned the decision of a Mocanu and Others v. Romania private company to dismiss an employee 17.09.2014 after monitoring his electronic The case concerned the investigation and communications and accessing their the length of the proceedings which contents, and the alleged failure of the followed the violent crackdown on domestic courts to protect his right to anti-government demonstrations in

2

Press country profile – Romania

Bucharest in 1990. During the Creangă v. Romania crackdown, Ms Mocanu’s husband was killed 23.02.2012 by gunfire and Mr Stoica was arrested and The case concerned a police officer’s ill-treated by the police. deprivation of liberty in connection with a Violation of the procedural aspect of largescale criminal investigation aimed at Article 2 (right to life - investigation) in dismantling a -trafficking respect of Ms Mocanu network. Violation of the procedural aspect of Article Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading and security) on account of Mr Creangă’s treatment - investigation) in respect of deprivation of liberty on 16 July 2003, at Mr Stoica least from 12 noon to 10 p.m., and his Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair placement in pre-trial detention on 25 July hearing within a reasonable time) in respect 2003 of the Association “21 1989” No violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of Centre For Legal Resources On Behalf Mr Creangă’s deprivation of liberty from 10 of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania p.m. on 16 July 2003 to 10 p.m. on 18 July 2003 17.07.2014 The case concerned the death of a young Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania man of Roma origin – who was HIV positive 17.12.2004 and suffering from a severe mental Conviction of journalists for insult and disability – in a psychiatric hospital. The defamation after publishing an article in application was lodged by a which they questioned the legality of a nongovernmental organisation (NGO) on contract signed by Constanţa City Council. his behalf. Violation of Article 10 (freedom of Violation of Article 2 (right to life), in both expression) its substantive and its procedural aspects Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective Brumărescu v. Romania remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 28.10.1999 Among other things, the Court found that, Refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to in the exceptional circumstances of the recognise that the lower courts had case, and bearing in mind the serious jurisdiction to deal with a claim for recovery nature of the allegations, it was open to the of possession. NGO to act as a representative of Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) Mr Câmpeanu, even though the Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 organisation was not itself a victim of the (protection of property) alleged violations of the Convention. Sindicatul ‘Păstorul cel Bun’ v. Chamber and Committee Romania Cases concerning right to life 09.07.2013 (Article 2) The case concerned the refusal by the

Romanian State of an application for Violation of Article 2 registration of a trade union formed by priests of the . Andreea-Marusi Dumitru v. Romania No violation of Article 11 (freedom of 31.03.2020 assembly and association) The case concerned the effectiveness and The Court held that in refusing to register length of the investigation conducted after the applicant union, the State had simply the applicant sustained gunshot wounds declined to become involved in the during a police operation at a goods train organisation and operation of the Romanian depot in November 2005. Orthodox Church, thereby observing its Ioniță v. Romania duty of denominational neutrality under Article 9 of the Convention. 10.01.2017 The case concerned the death of the applicants’ four-year-old son following an operation. The applicants complained that the authorities had failed to effectively

- 3 -

Press country profile – Romania

investigate the incident, despite their Cases concerning the 1989 repeated claims that it had been caused by anti-communist demonstrations the negligence of medical staff. Alecu and Others v. Romania Crăiniceanu and Frumușanu v. 27.01.2015 Romania The applicants are the victims or heirs of 24.04.2012 victims of the armed crackdown on Deaths of two people who were shot on demonstrations against the communist 25 September 1991 during rioting in front dictatorship, beginning on 21 December of the Government in 1989 in Bucharest and in other cities in the and the subsequent investigation (not country, which led to the collapse of the completed 20 years after the events). regime. The case concerns the investigation into those events. Panaitescu v. Romania Violation of Article 2 (investigation) 10.04.2012 Violation of Article 3 (investigation) The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the Romanian authorities’ Association “21 December 1989” and failure to provide him with specific anti- Others v. Romania cancerous medication for free. 24.05.2011 The case concerned the crackdown on anti- Predică v. Romania government demonstrations in Romania in 07.06.2011 December 1989. The case concerned the official explanation Violation of Article 2 on account of the lack for the violent death of a 20 year old man of an effective investigation into the death in prison. of the son of applicants; violation of Article Iorga and Others v. Romania 8 (right to respect for private life and 25.01.2011 correspondence) on account of secret surveillance measures Death in prison, after being assaulted by The Court noted that its finding of a fellow inmates, of the applicants’ relative, violation of Article 2 related to a wide-scale who had been given a short sentence for problem, given that many hundreds of not paying a fine of about 20 and people were involved as injured parties in who was an alcoholic. the impugned criminal proceedings. It Carabulea v. Romania added that general measures at domestic 13.07.2010 level would unquestionably be necessary in The case concerned a Roma robbery the context of the execution of this suspect who was tortured in police custody judgment. and refused contact with his family. He died In the 3 cases below, the Court found a in intensive care. violation of Article 2 (lack of an effective Lazăr v. Romania remedy) 16.02.2010 Lăpuşan and Others v. Romania Case concerning the forensic medical 08.03.2011 reports in the investigation into a young Proceedings brought by nine applicants man’s death in hospital. seeking compensation for violence suffered during the repression of anti-communist Velcea and Mazăre v. Romania demonstrations in Cluj- in 1989. 01.12.2009 Șandru and Others v. Romania Refusal of the domestic courts to declare a 08.12.2009 murderer unworthy of inheriting, because Investigations into injuries and deaths he had committed suicide and had related to the 1989 anti-communist therefore never actually been convicted. demonstrations in Timişoara.

No Violation of Article 2 Agache and Others v. Romania 20.10.2009 A et B c. Roumanie (no 48442/16) Investigation into the death of an officer 02.06.2020 killed in the anti-communist demonstrations in Târgu-Secuiesc on 22 December 1989.

- 4 -

Press country profile – Romania

Right to life and prohibition of inhuman applicants, some were awarded damages or degrading treatment ten years later. (Articles 2 and 3) Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)

Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for Attacks on Roma villages and destruction of private and family life and home) and possessions No violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to Costică Moldovan and Others v. court) of the Convention Romania Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair 15.02.2011 trial) of the Convention on account of the This application concerned difficulties with length of the proceedings the execution of Moldovan (no. 2) and Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of Others v. Romania, judgment of 12 July discrimination) taken in conjunction with 2005 (see below). Articles 6 § 1 and 8. The Court declared the application See also Moldovan (no. 1) and Others v. inadmissible. Romania, judgment (friendly settlement) See also Moldovan and Others v. of 5 July 2005, and Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, inadmissibility decision of Romania, judgment of 13 November 2012. 17 April 2012. Gergely v. Romania and Kalanyos and Cases concerning inhuman or Others v. Romania degrading treatment 26.04.2007 (Article 3) These cases concerned the burning of houses belonging to Roma villagers by local Violation of Article 3 population, the poor living conditions of the D. and Others v. Romania (no. victims and the authorities’ failure to 75953/16) prevent the attack and to carry out an 14.01.2020 adequate criminal investigation, depriving The case concerned an order for the the applicants of their right to bring a civil expulsion to Iraq of an Iraqi national action to establish liability and recover following his conviction in Romania for damages. having facilitated the entry to Romania of The Court decided to strike the applications persons involved in terrorist activities (a out of its list of cases following a unilateral migrant smuggling offence). declaration by the Romanian Government. The Court held that there would not be a See also Tănase and Others v. Romania, violation of Article 2 (right to life) and 3 judgment (striking out) of 26 May 2009. (prohibition of torture and inhuman or Moldovan (no. 2) and Others v. degrading treatment) of the European Romania Convention if the order to expel the 12.07.2005 applicant to Iraq were implemented. In September 1993 three Roma men were Buturugă v. Romania attacked in the village of Hădăreni by a 10.02.2020 large crowd of non-Roma villagers, The case concerned allegations of domestic including the commander and violence and of violation of the several officers: one burnt to death, the confidentiality of electronic correspondence other two were beaten to death by the by the former husband of the applicant, crowd. The applicants alleged that the Ms Buturugă, who complained of police then encouraged the crowd to shortcomings in the system for protecting destroy other Roma properties: in total 13 victims of this type of violence. Roma houses in the village were completely destroyed. Hounded from their village and Bădoiu v. Romania homes, the applicants were then obliged to 25.06.2019 live in crowded and unsuitable conditions – The case concerned allegations of police cellars, hen-houses, stables. Following violence and the ensuing investigation. criminal complaints brought by the

- 5 -

Press country profile – Romania

E.B. v. Romania (no. 49089/10) Romanian legislation, only convicted 19.03.2019 mothers of children under the age of one The case concerned the applicant’s can obtain a stay of execution of their complaint that her accusations of rape had prison sentences until their child’s first not been properly investigated and that she birthday. had been deprived of her procedural rights. Bălșan v. Romania Al Nashiri v. Romania 23.05.2017 31.05.2018 The case concerned an allegation of The case concerned the applicant’s domestic abuse. allegations that Romania had let the United Ms Bălșan alleged that the authorities had States Central Intelligence Agency (the failed to protect her from her husband’s CIA) transport him under the secret violent behaviour and to hold him programme onto its accountable, despite her numerous territory and had allowed him to be complaints. subjected to ill-treatment and arbitrary I.C. v. Romania (no. 36934/08) detention in a CIA detention “”. 24.05.2016 He also complained that Romania had failed The case concerned a complaint about the to carry out an effective investigation into inadequacy of the investigation into a his allegations. 14-year old girl’s allegation of rape. Dorneanu v. Romania M.C. and A.C. v. Romania 28.11.2017 (no. 64602/12) The case concerned the living conditions 12.04.2016 and care provided to a prisoner, The case concerned the applicants’ Mr Dorneanu, who was suffering from complaint that they had been attacked on terminal metastatic prostate cancer. He their way home from a gay and that died after eight months in detention. the ensuing investigation had been D.M.D. v. Romania (no. 23022/13) inadequate. 03.10.2017 M. G. C. v. Romania (no. 61495/11) The case concerned the proceedings 15.03.2016 brought by a son against his father for The case concerned an allegation of domestic abuse. The proceedings lasted defective legislation for the prosecution of over eight years and ended in the father’s rape and/or sexual abuse of children in conviction of physically and mentally Romania. abusing his child. D.M.D., the applicant, complained that those proceedings had Grămadă v. Romania been ineffective and that he had not been 11.02.2014 awarded damages. In particular, the The case concerned the shooting of domestic courts had found at last instance Mr Grămadă by a police officer during the that they did not have to examine the issue arrest of a man who was on the run and of compensation as neither he nor the took refuge in Mr Grămadă’s home. prosecutor had made such a request before the lower courts. C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania (no. The Court recalled in particular that 26692/05) Member States should strive to protect 20.03.2012 children’s dignity and that, in practice, this The case concerned a seven-year-old’s required an adequate legal framework to complaint that it had taken the authorities protect children against domestic violence. five years to investigate his repeated rape by a man, eventually acquitted, who had Alexandru Enache v. Romania forced his way into the family flat when the 03.10.2017 boy had come home alone from school in a The case concerned, on the one hand, a period from January to April 1998. prisoner’s complaint about his conditions of detention and, on the other, his complaint about discrimination on grounds of sex stemming from the fact that under

- 6 -

Press country profile – Romania

Parascineti v. Romania The Court held that there would not be a 13.03.2012 violation of Article 2 (right to life) and 3 if Placement of applicant in psychiatric the order to expel the applicant to Iraq institution. were implemented The Court also held that there had been a M. and C. v. Romania (no. 29032/04) violation of Article 13 (right to an effective 27.09.2011 remedy) taken together with Articles 2 and Allegations that a three-year old boy was 3. sexually abused amidst acrimonious proceedings between his parents over custody and contact rights. Examples of cases concerning conditions of detention Archip v. Romania Kanalas v. Romania 27.09.2011 Applicant’s allegation that he had been 06.12.2016 taken to his local police station and The case concerned the conditions in which handcuffed to a tree for nearly three hours Mr Kanalas was held in the prisons of for complaining about a reduction in his and , and the rejection by sickness benefit. the prison administration of his request for leave in order to attend his mother’s Jiga v. Romania funeral. 16.03.2010 Violation of Article 3 The case concerned the obligation for a Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for defendant (Director General of the private and family life) Economic and Budgetary Directorate at the The Court found – as it had already found Ministry of Agriculture and Food) to wear in respect of the same prisons – that the prison clothing in court, the prolongation of conditions of the applicant’s detention his pre-trial detention and his conditions in breached Article 3 of the Convention. detention. Apostu v. Romania Stoica v. Romania 03.02.2015 04.03.2008 The case concerned the pre-trial detention Clash between police officers and people of conditions of a former accused of Roma origin outside a bar during which the corruption and his allegation that part of 14-year-old applicant was ill-treated by the the case file was leaked to the media. police. Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for Cobzaru v. Romania private and family life, the home and the 26.07.2007 correspondence) The case concerned the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police. Florin Andrei v. Romania Pantea v. Romania 15.04.2014 The case concerned the physical conditions 03.06.2003 of the applicant’s detention in a cell at Former public prosecutor remanded in Constanţa police station for two months in custody. 2005, in particular overcrowding, poor

sanitary conditions and lack of access to a No violation of Article 3 toilet. D and Others v. Romania Violation of Article 3 (no. 75953/16) Remus Tudor v. Romania 14.01.2020 15.04.2014 The case concerned an order for the The case concerned the applicant’s expulsion to Iraq of an Iraqi national conditions of detention, in particular following his conviction in Romania for overcrowding and poor hygiene, when having facilitated the entry to Romania of serving his sentence in Prison from persons involved in terrorist activities (a April 2009 to November 2011. migrant smuggling offence). Violation of Article 3

- 7 -

Press country profile – Romania

Stanciu v. Romania The Court held, in particular, that the 24.07.2012 application of this law demonstrated, in The case concerned the applicant’s essence, the national authorities’ conditions of detention in several Romanian acknowledgment of a violation of Article 3 prisons, in particular overcrowding, bad of the European Convention on Human hygiene conditions and inadequate medical Rights. treatment. The Court also found that the compensation Violation of Article 3 mechanism implemented, consisting in a Noting that there were 80 similar reduction of sentence, was adequate and applications against Romania concerning appropriate. this issue pending before the Court, the Cases concerning medical care in detention Court pointed out that this case reflected a common problem in Romanian prisons and Gavriliţă v. Romania that, despite efforts to improve the 22.06.2010 situation, Romania had to take further Alleged failure of authorities to provide sick steps, including a compensation scheme. prisoner with medical care. No violation of Article 3 Ciupercescu v. Romania

15.06.2010 Also see Gagiu v. Romania (24.02.2009) The applicant, in pre-trial detention, and Petrea v. Romania (29.04.2008) objected that he had been placed under the detention regime for dangerous prisoners Cases concerning non-smokers in detention involving, in particular unannounced body searches on a weekly basis and whenever Elefteriadis v. Romania he left the prison. 25.01.2011 No violation of Article 3 as regards the Applicant’s exposure to fellow prisoners’ applicant’s classification as a dangerous tobacco smoke in shared cells, while being prisoner transported to court and in the waiting Two violations of Article 3 as regards the areas before his court appearances. applicant’s detention regime following his Violation of Article 3 classification as a dangerous prisoner and Florea v. Romania the conditions of his detention in Bucharest-Jilava Prison (overcrowding) 14.09.2010 Overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions Brânduşe v. Romania in detention, including subjection to passive 07.04.2009 smoking. Conditions of detention and detrimental Violation of Article 3 effect on private life of offensive smells produced by a city-run refuse site 20 Right to liberty and security cases metres from the prison. (Article 5) Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for Cîrstea v. Romania private and family life) 23.07.2019 The case concerned the applicant’s Application inadmissible placement in pre-trial detention in the proceedings which followed a dramatic fire Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania in a neonatal intensive-care ward where 28.05.2020 she was responsible for monitoring care. The case concerned two complaints about Violation of Article 5 § 3 (justification of unsatisfactory conditions of detention. pre-trial detention) Application declared inadmissible No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to The Court noted that the applicants had a speedy review of the lawfulness of both been granted a reduction of their detention) prison sentence by way of compensation for the poor conditions of detention, pursuant to Romanian Law no. 169/2017. They had consequently benefited from early release.

- 8 -

Press country profile – Romania

Al Nashiri v. Romania Application declared inadmissible as 31.05.2018 manifestly ill-founded. The case concerned the applicant’s B.A.A. v. Romania (no. 70621/16) allegations that Romania had let the United 18.04.2019 States Central Intelligence Agency (the The case concerned the applicant’s CIA) transport him under the secret complaint about an arrest order issued by extraordinary rendition programme onto its the Romanian authorities. territory and had allowed him to be Application declared inadmissible as subjected to ill-treatment and arbitrary manifestly ill-founded. detention in a CIA detention “black site”. He also complained that Romania had failed to carry out an effective investigation into Cases concerning Article 6 his allegations.

Violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and Right to a fair trial security), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), and Article 13 (right to an Violation of Article 6 effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 and 8 Kövesi v. Romania N. v. Romania (no. 59152/08) 05.05.2020 The case concerned the applicant’s removal 28.11.2017 as the chief prosecutor of the National The case concerned the detention of a Anticorruption Directorate before the end of person suffering from psychiatric disorders. her second term following her criticism of Violation of Article 5 § 1 legislative reforms in the of corruption. Violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy She alleged that she had also been unable review of the lawfulness of detention) to challenge that decision in court. Under Article 46 (binding force and Link to press release in Romanian execution of judgments), the Court held, firstly, that the authorities should Cristian Stoica v. Romania implement without delay the County Court’s 24.04.2018 judgment of 21 February 2017 ordering N.’s The case concerned Mr Stoica’s conviction release in conditions meeting his needs; by an appeal court of the dissemination of and secondly, that the deficiencies obscene images (sexual intercourse identified in his case were likely to give rise between him and his former partner) to other well-founded applications. without a renewed hearing of the witnesses C.B. v. Romania (no. 21207/03) and on the basis of the same evidence which had been deemed insufficient by the 20.04.2010 firstinstance court having acquitted him. Psychiatric detention of a man charged with maliciously accusing a police officer. S.C. Uzinexport S.A. v. Romania Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 31.03.2015 The case concerned the dismissal of a claim by a company seeking to obtain default Application inadmissible interest for late payment in respect of a Terheş v. Romania sum owed to it by the State. 20.05.2021 Roşiianu v. Romania The case concerned the lockdown which 24.06.2014 was ordered by the Romanian government The case concerned the refusal by the from 24 March to 14 May 2020 to tackle the mayor of Mare to disclose information COVID-19 and which entailed about the use of public money by the restrictions on leaving one’s home. municipal administration to a journalist who Application declared inadmissible. had submitted a request to that effect. The Boldea v. Romania mayor had also refused to comply with court decisions ordering him to hand over 04.02.2021 the information. The case concerned the pre-trial detention in the applicant’s organised-crime trial.

- 9 -

Press country profile – Romania

S.C. Raisa M. Shipping. S.R.L. v. to be claimed without the participation of all Roumanie the joint owners. 08.07.2013 The case concerned proceedings brought by No violation of Article 6 the applicant company against the Galați Administration of the Lower Marilena-Carmen Popa v. Romania Galați regarding river tax billing. 18.02.2020 In this case, the Court focused on the The case concerned criminal proceedings application of the legislation in force at the against the applicant for forgery. relevant time (currently amended) Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania concerning summoning by way of posting. 04.02.2020 Popa and Tănăsescu v. Romania The case concerned the applicant’s 10.04.2012 allegation that a judge who had been The case concerned the applicants’ involved in convicting him in two sets of complaint that the last instance national connected proceedings could not be court deciding in a criminal case against impartial. them convicted them without giving them Bivolaru v. Romania (no. 2) the possibility to defend themselves in person and to submit evidence. 02.10.2018 The case concerned criminal proceedings in Ştefănică and Others v. Romania which Mr Bivolaru – leader of a movement 02.11.2010 known as the “Movement for spiritual Case concerning the compensation granted integration in the absolute” (“MISA”) – was for dismissal to 18 former employees of a sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for former State-owned bank, which was sexual relations with a minor. involved in a restructuring process in 1998 Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania and 1999 which entailed hundreds of dismissals. The applicants complained that 26.06.2018 the domestic courts’ decisions with regard The case concerned the seizure of cash and to the granting of compensation for property from the applicants on the dismissal had been inconsistent, even suspicion that they had benefited from though the claims had been brought by bribes taken by a close relative, a doctor people in similar situations and had who made decisions on work capacity in a involved similar legal issues. office. He later admitted to the charges and was sentenced to three years Albert v. Romania in prison. 16.02.2010 Dragoş Ioan Rusu v. Romania Proceedings against a mayor for removing the Romanian flag from his hall and 31.10.2017 translating the town’s name into Hungarian. The case concerned a university researcher’s conviction for trafficking Tudor Tudor v. Romania Diazepam via his local post office. Mr Rusu, 24.03.2009 the applicant, alleged in particular that his Action for recovery of possession of a flat conviction had been unfair because it was bought from the State based on unlawfully obtained evidence, namely envelopes seized by the prosecuting Beian v. Romania authorities at the post office without the 06.12.2007 approval of a court. The case concerned proceedings relating to social benefits for forced labour during the Albu and Others v. Romania applicant’s . 10.05.2012 The case concerned the complaints of Lupaș and Others v. Romania 64 civil servants that their claims for 14.12.2006 salary-related benefits were wrongfully Dismissal of the applicants’ actions to dismissed in an unfair trial, notably alleging recover confiscated property by the Court that the national courts had not taken into of Cassation pursuant to the unanimity consideration other rulings on similar claims rule, which did not allow undivided property

- 10 -

Press country profile – Romania

brought by their fellow civil servants across territory and had allowed him to be the country in which such benefits had been subjected to ill-treatment and arbitrary granted. detention in a CIA detention “black site”. See also cases in which the Court applied He also complained that Romania had failed its case-law following the Court’s judgment to carry out an effective investigation into in the case Albu: his allegations. Frimu and Others v. Romania Vlad and Others v. Romania Tunaru v. Romania 26.11.2013 13.11.2012 (decision on the admissibility) The case concerned the length of legal Neghea and Others v. Romania proceedings that the three applicants had Radu and Others v. Romania been involved in before the Romanian 11.09.2012 (decision on the admissibility) courts, and the remedy available for their excessive length. Application inadmissible Due to there being 500 similar cases against Romania currently pending before Rarinca v. Romania the European Court concerning excessive 04.02.2021 length of criminal and civil proceedings, the The case concerned the court proceedings Court held that there was a systemic in a trial for the blackmail of the president problem which required further reforms of of highest court in Romania. the legal system in order for the right to a Application declared inadmissible. fair trial within a reasonable time to be Ilinca v. Romania secured in Romania. 24.10.2019 Codarcea v. Romania The case concerned the withdrawal of a 02.06.2009 permit authorising the possession of Length of proceedings in a case of medical firearms. negligence and applicant’s inability to Application declared inadmissible as obtain the compensation awarded to her by manifestly ill-founded. a court because of the doctor’s insolvency. Ilie v. Romania The domestic courts refused to recognize the liability of the hospital. 26.09.2019 The case concerned the alleged lack of Abramiuc v. Roumania impartiality of judges in a dispute over 24.02.2009 property rights. Non execution of a final decision ordering Application declared inadmissible as the payment of royalties to the applicant for manifestly ill-founded. the period of time his invention had been used; length of two sets of proceedings and Right to a fair trial within a reasonable time the applicant’s impossibility to complain of that length under Romanian law. Violation of Article 6 Bivolaru v. Romania (no. 2) Right of access to Court

02.10.2018 Violation of Article 6 The case concerned criminal proceedings in which Mr Bivolaru – leader of a movement Reformed Church Foundation for known as the “Movement for spiritual Student Housing and Stanomirescu v. integration in the absolute” (“MISA”) – was Romania sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for 07.01.2014 sexual relations with a minor. These cases concerned the systemic issue Al Nashiri v. Romania of the non-execution by the Romanian authorities of binding and enforceable 31.05.2018 domestic decisions given against State The case concerned the applicant’s authorities and in favour of an NGO and an allegations that Romania had let the United individual applicant. States Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA) transport him under the secret extraordinary rendition programme onto its

- 11 -

Press country profile – Romania

Weissman and Others v. Romania knowledge and on the initiative of the 24.05.2006 applicant’s sister. Large stamp duty required to initiate Convertito and Others v. Romania proceedings (EUR 323,264). 03.03.2020

The case concerned the annulment, owing to administrative flaws, of State degrees in Neagoe v. Romania dentistry obtained by the applicants in 21.07.2015 Romania. The case concerned a statement made by Buturugă v. Romania the spokesperson of the Court of Appeal 10.02.2020 before the latter had conducted its The case concerned allegations of domestic deliberations, encouraging the public to violence and of violation of the consider the applicant, Mr Neagoe, guilty of confidentiality of electronic correspondence – among other things – manslaughter. by the former husband of the applicant, Violation of Article 6 § 2 Ms Buturugă, who complained of Case on Article 7 shortcomings in the system for protecting (no punishment without law) victims of this type of violence. Plechkov v. Romania Dragoş Ioan Rusu v. Romania 16.09.2014 31.10.2017 The case concerned the sentencing of The case concerned a university Mr Plechkov to a suspended prison term researcher’s conviction for trafficking together with the confiscation of his boat Diazepam via his local post office. Mr Rusu, (including the installations, tools and cargo the applicant, alleged in particular that his on board) for allegedly fishing illegally conviction had been unfair because it was within the Romanian “exclusive economic based on unlawfully obtained evidence, zone” in the . namely envelopes seized by the prosecuting Violation of Article 7 (no punishment authorities at the post office without the without law) approval of a court. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. (protection of property) Romania

26.07.2011 Cases concerning private 71-year-old woman, who was left disabled and family life after being attacked by a pack of stray (Article 8) dogs. Press release in Romanian Violation of Article 8 Geleri v. Romania X and Y v. Romania 15.02.2011 19.01.2021 Expulsion of a political refugee on the The case concerned the situation of two grounds of national security, under an transgender persons whose requests for order that did not set out reasons. recognition of their gender identity and for the relevant administrative corrections to Băcilă v. Romania be made were refused on the grounds that 30.03.2010 persons making such requests had to Effects on the applicant’s health and living furnish proof that they had undergone environment of the pollution generated by a gender reassignment surgery. plant producing lead and zinc. Marina v. Romania Haralambie v. Romania 26.05.2020 27.10.2009 The case concerned a radio programme Obstacles encountered by the applicant to during which a letter was read out access to the personal file created on him containing personal information about Mr by the former secret services of the Marina and his ex-wife, without their Communist Regime (the ).

- 12 -

Press country profile – Romania

Tătar v. Romania approved and 18 years after the death of 27.01.2009 their adoptive mother. Pollution generated by a technological This was the first occasion on which the process used by a company to exploit the Court had to consider the annulment of an gold mine. adoption order in a context where the adoptive parent was dead and the adopted Petrina v. Romania child had long reached adulthood. 14.10.2008 Allegations that the applicant was a No violation of Article 8 member of the former Secret Services of the Communist Regime - the Securitate. Stoian v. Romania 25.06.2019 Dumitru Popescu v. Romania The case concerned complaints by the 26.04.2007 applicants, a disabled son and his mother, Use of telephone tapping in the course of that the authorities had failed to provided an investigation. suitable access to education for him. No violation of Article 8, taken alone and in No violation of Article 8 conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of Naidin v. Romania discrimination) No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 21.10.2014 (right to education), taken alone and in The case concerned the barring of a conjunction with Article 14 one-time informer of the Romanian political police from employment in the public Pini and Bertani & Manera and Atripaldi service. v. Romania 22.06.2004 Application inadmissible Refusal of institution for orphaned and abandoned children to hand Romanian Man and Others v. Romania children adopted by the applicants (four 12.12.2019 Italian nationals). The applicants, Mr Man, his wife and their media companies, brought multiple Parental rights cases (Article 8) complaints under the Convention, essentially connected to the search-and- Violation of Article 8 seizure operation at their home and newspaper premises as well as the freezing Cînța v. Romania of their assets and bank accounts during 18.02.2020 the criminal proceedings over the blackmail The case concerned court-ordered network. restrictions on the applicant’s contact with Complaint under Article 8 declared his daughter. inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. O.C.I. and Others v. Romania (no. 49450/17) Children’s rights (Article 8) 21.05.2019 The case concerned the interpretation of Violation of Article 8 “grave risk” under international law in a M. G. C. v. Romania (no. 61495/11) child custody dispute. 15.03.2016 R. I. and Others v. Romania The case concerned an allegation of (no. 57077/16) defective legislation for the prosecution of 04.12.2018 rape and/or sexual abuse of children in The case concerned a woman who was Romania. given custody of her two children but who Zaieţ v. Romania was not able to enforce the orders, which 24.03.2015 left the children with the father. The case concerned the annulment of a woman’s adoption, at the instigation of her adoptive sister, 31 years after it had been

- 13 -

Press country profile – Romania

Ostace v. Romania Freedom of thought, conscience and 25.02.2014 religion The case concerned Mr Ostace’s inability to (Article 9) obtain the revision of a judgment establishing his paternity in spite of an Violation of Article 9 extra-judicial forensic examination proving Neagu v. Romania the contrary. The request was rejected on 10.11.2020 the ground that the document in question The case concerned a prisoner who had did not exist at the time of the initial converted to while in detention. He proceedings. complained of the refusal of the Romanian Hulea v. Romania authorities to provide him with -free 02.10.2012 meals, in accordance with the precepts of The case concerned the refusal of the his religion, unless he furnished proof that Defence Ministry to grant Mr Hulea parental he was an adherent of that religion. leave on the grounds that by law such leave Saran v. Romania was granted only to female personnel. 10.11.2020 Romanian translation of this judgment The case concerned the provision to a Karrer v. Romania prisoner of meals compatible with the 21.02.2012 precepts of Islam. The case concerned a complaint by a father and his daughter about international child No violation of Article 9 abduction proceedings before the Romanian Erlich and Kastro v. Romania courts. 09.06.2020 A.M.M. v. Romania (no. 2151/10) The case concerned the provision of kosher 14.02.2012 meals to two Israeli prisoners of Jewish The case concerned paternity proceedings faith detained in a Romanian prison. The brought by the mother of a minor with applicants complained of the failure of the disabilities, who was herself severely Rahova Prison authorities to provide them disabled. with meals complying with the precepts of their religion. No violation of Article 8 Achim v. Romania Freedom of expression cases 24.10.2017 (Article 10) The case concerned the placement in care of Ms and Mr Achim’s seven children on the Violation of Article 10 grounds that the couple had not been Tőkés v. Romania fulfilling their parental duties and 27.04.2021 obligations. The case concerned a Romanian national, Knecht v. Romania László Tőkés, who belongs to the Hungarian 02.10.2012 minority in Romania and who was elected The applicant complained that she had as a member of the European in been prevented from becoming a mother by respect of . The Romanian means of in vitro fertilisation due to the authorities imposed sanctions on Mr Tőkés State’s refusal to transfer embryos she had for flying the flags of Szeklerland and the deposited with a private clinic and which, (Részek) territory on the building when the clinic came under criminal housing his office in Oradea. investigation, had been seized and Violation of Article 10 deposited at the Institute of Forensic Gheorghe-Florin Popescu v. Romania Medicine, which had not been authorised to 12.01.2021 function as a genetic bank. The case concerned the domestic authorities’ decision to order the applicant, a journalist, to pay damages for having published five blog posts criticising L.B.,

- 14 -

Press country profile – Romania

another journalist who was the editor- the media audio tapes involving politicians inchief of a newspaper in the Desteptarea and journalists. media group and producer for a local Frăsilă and Ciocîrlan v. Romania television channel belonging to the same group. 10.05.2012 The case concerned the enforcement of a Macovei v. Romania court decision giving journalists the right of 28.07.2020 access to the premises of a local radio The case concerned the applicant being station where they worked. found liable for defaming another politician. Andreescu v. Romania Petro Carbo Chem S.E. v. Romania 08.06.2010 30.06.2020 Conviction of a well-known human rights The case concerned a civil court order activist for remarks concerning the agency issued to the applicant company to pay managing the intelligence service’s archives symbolic compensation to the Chief (the “CNSAS”: the National Council for the Executive Officer (CEO) of the Oltchim Study of the Archives of the Securitate, the company (which was the largest chemicals Romanian intelligence service under the factory in Romania) for criticising the CEO’s former regime). management of the company in the context of a media conflict. No violation of Article 10 Kövesi v. Romania Panioglu v. Romania 05.05.2020 08.12.2020 The case concerned the applicant’s removal The case concerned professional penalties as the chief prosecutor of the National suffered by a judge, in particular Anticorruption Directorate before the end of concerning promotion, for an article she her second term following her criticism of had written in the press. The article had legislative reforms in the area of corruption. severely criticised the President of the She alleged that she had also been unable Court of Cassation’s activities as a to challenge that decision in court. prosecutor under the repressive communist Link to press release in Romanian regime. Brisc v. Romania Gafiuc v. Romania 11.12.2018 13.10.2010 The case concerned a chief prosecutor’s The case concerned the withdrawal of the dismissal for breaching the secrecy of a accreditation granted to a journalist to criminal investigation when he made study the archives of the Securitate in statements to the press. He was sanctioned order to conduct research into sports following a judge’s complaint that his press activities under the communist regime. In release and interview with a television June and July 2009 the journalist published channel had allowed the media to identify several articles in which he disclosed her as being implicated in a money scam. information about certain well-known sports Gîrleanu v. Romania figures. 26.06.2018 Catalan v. Romania The case concerned the arrest and 09.01.2018 conviction of a journalist for possessing and The case concerned the dismissal of a civil trying to verify on servant (Mr Catalan), who worked for the national security, namely documents National Council for the Study of Securitate belonging to a Romanian military unit Archives (CNSAS), for disclosing based in Afghanistan. information for the publication of an article Bucur and Toma v. Romania claiming that a religious leader had 08.01.2013 collaborated with the Securitate (the former Agent of the intelligence-gathering services political police under the communist (Mr Bucur) sentenced in criminal regime). proceedings for having communicated to

- 15 -

Press country profile – Romania

Application inadmissible Cases concerning Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) Man and Others v. Romania 12.12.2019 Association ACCEPT and Others v. The applicants, Mr Man, his wife and their Romania media companies, brought multiple 01.06.2021 complaints under the Convention, The case concerned a demonstration that essentially connected to the search-and- had occurred at a screening of a film seizure operation at their home and involving a same-sex family during the newspaper premises as well as the freezing applicant association’s LGBT History Month of their assets and bank accounts during in February 2013. The other five applicants the criminal proceedings over the blackmail had attended the screening. Although the network. police had provided some protection, the Complaint under Article 10 declared cinema had been invaded by protestors, inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. allegedly carrying far-right paraphernalia. Cinemagoers had been verbally abused. Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction Case dealing with freedom of assembly with Article 8 (right to respect for private and association and family life) in respect of the individual (Article 11) applicants Csiszer and Csibi v. Romania Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction 05.05.2020 with Article 11 (freedom of assembly and The case concerned the imposition of an association) administrative fine on the applicants for Cînța v. Romania organising a gathering on 1 December 18.02.2020 2010, the day of the Romanian national The case concerned court-ordered holiday, to commemorate the founding of restrictions on the applicant’s contact with the Székely battalion. On 1 December his daughter. 1918, in Cluj-Napoca, Hungarian military Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of units had joined forces to form the Székely discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 battalion to fight the Romanian army, which (right to respect for private and family life) had entered . In April 1919 the battalion surrendered to the Romanian Lingurar v. Romania army. 16.04.2019 No violation of Article 11 The case concerned a raid in 2011 by Manole and “Romanian Farmers Direct” 85 police and gendarmes on the Roma v. Romania community in Vâlcele (Romania). Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of 16.06.2015 inhuman or degrading treatment) as The case concerned the refusal to register concerned the ill-treatment of the applicant the union of self-employed farmers which family during the raid Mr Manole wished to set up. Two violations of Article 14 in conjunction No violation of Article 11 with Article 3 because the raid had been racially motivated and the related Effective remedy rights investigation had been ineffective (Article 13) Lingurar and Others v. Romania Brudan v. Romania 16.10.2018 10.04.2018 The case concerned two police operations in The case concerned the length of the the Roma community of Pata Rât to locate criminal proceedings brought against the individuals suspected of theft. applicant, which began on 23 March 2000 Violation of both the substantive and and ended on 18 June 2014. procedural aspects of Article 3 Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective No violation of the substantive aspect of remedy) Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial taken together with Article 3 within a reasonable time)

- 16 -

Press country profile – Romania

Violation of the procedural aspect of Article Property issues 14 taken together with Article 3 (Article 1 of Protocol no. 1)

Cernea v. Romania Violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 27.02.2018 The case concerned the rejection of the Catholic Archdiocese of v. candidature of Mr Cernea – the Executive Romania President of the ecologist party Partidul 25.09.2012 Verde at the time – for 17 January 2010 The case concerned a Catholic religious by-elections on the grounds that he was community which wished to recuperate, not standing for a party represented in under an emergency order enacted in 1998, Parliament. The decision was made under a ownership of assets confiscated by the law which had been amended less than a Romanian authorities during the communist year before the by-elections under an period. organic law. Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3 02.11.2006 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) Prolonged inability of the applicants to enjoy the use of formerly confiscated Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and property that had been legally returned to Others v. Romania them, because of the impossibility of 29.11.2016 evicting a tenant occupying the flat. The case concerned a request for the Non-violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 restitution of a place of worship that had Yașar v. Romania belonged to the Greek Catholic Church and was transferred during the totalitarian 26.11.2019 regime to the ownership of the Orthodox The case concerned the confiscation of Mr Church. Yaşar’s vessel because it had been used for No violation of the Article 6 § 1 in respect illegal fishing in the Black Sea. of the right of access to a court Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Application inadmissible breach of the principle of legal certainty Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Alexandru-Mihai Pop and Others v. length of the proceedings Romania No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of 25.04.2019 discrimination) taken together with Article 6 The case concerned the requirement for the § 1 in respect of the applicants’ right of applicants to pay a pollution tax based on access to a court in comparison with the an emergency ordinance (OUG no. Orthodox parish 50/2008), for the purposes of registering in The Court further held that that it was not Romania the second-hand vehicles they had necessary to examine separately the bought in other countries. complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of Applications declared inadmissible for discrimination) taken together with Article 6 failure to exhaust domestic remedies. § 1 in so far as it concerned an alleged difference of treatment compared with Right to free elections other Greek Catholic parishes. (Article 3 of Protocol no. 1)

See also Moldovan (no. 2) and Others v. Violation of Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 Romania, judgment of 12 July 2005. Cegolea v. Romania 24.03.2020 In this case Ms Cegolea alleged that she had been subjected to discrimination with regard to her right to stand in the parliamentary elections of 9 December 2012 on behalf of a foundation representing the Italian minority in Romania.

- 17 -

Press country profile – Romania

Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of Right not to be tried or punished twice discrimination) read in conjunction with (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7) Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) Application inadmissible Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks Prina v. Romania v. Romania 01.10.2020 21.04.2015 The case concerned two penalties imposed The case concerned the applicant on the applicant for acts allegedly association’s inability to meet the committed in his capacity as head of the requirements for standing in the 2008 city’s technical department: an parliamentary elections following the entry administrative fine and a suspended prison into force of a new electoral law only seven sentence. months before the elections. The new law Application declared inadmissible required national minority organisations not represented in Parliament to have been General prohibition on discrimination granted charitable status in order to be able (Article 1 of Protocol No. 12) to stand for election.

Grosaru v. Romania No-violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 12 02.03.2010 Napotnik v. Romania Refusal to allocate a seat as Member of 20.10.2020 Parliament under an electoral law. The case concerned a diplomat’s allegation

that she had been recalled from her post in No-violation of Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 the Romanian Embassy in Cernea v. Romania because she was pregnant. 27.02.2018 Ádám and Others v. Romania The case concerned the rejection of the 13.10.2020 candidature of Mr Cernea – the Executive The case concerned complaints by the President of the ecologist party Partidul applicants about discrimination against Verde at the time – for 17 January 2010 them as members of the Hungarian by-elections on the grounds that he was minority in the taking of final school exams not standing for a party represented in — they had to take exams than ethnic Parliament. The decision was made under a (two Hungarian tests) over the law which had been amended less than a same number of days, and the Romanian year before the by-elections under an exams had been difficult for them as non- organic law. native speakers.

Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens Pilot judgment procedure1 (Article 1 of Protocol no. 7) Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania

2 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 7 25.04.2017 (pilot judgment) The case concerned the conditions of Hassine v. Romania detention in Romanian prisons and in 09.03.2021 The case concerned administrative proceedings following which the applicant 1 was expelled from Romania on national- The pilot judgment procedure was developed as a security grounds. technique of identifying the structural problems underlying repetitive cases against many countries and imposing an obligation on States to those problems. 2 The pilot judgment procedure was developed as a technique of identifying the structural problems underlying repetitive cases against many countries and imposing an obligation on States to address those problems.

- 18 -

Press country profile – Romania

detention facilities attached to police detention in Deva Prison (from 27 February stations. 2014 to 29 April 2015 and from 14 May The applicants complained, among other 2015 to 25 May 2015) things, of overcrowding in their cells, Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective inadequate sanitary facilities, lack of remedy) taken together with Article 3 hygiene, poor-quality food, dilapidated Under Article 46 (binding force and equipment and the presence of rats and execution of judgments) of the Convention, insects in the cells. the Court welcomed the steps taken by the Under Article 3, the Court held in particular national authorities since its pilot judgment that the conditions of the applicants’ in order to reduce prison overcrowding. detention, also taking into account the Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania length of their incarceration, had subjected them to hardship going beyond the 12.10.2010 unavoidable level of suffering inherent in Cases concerning the restitution of detention. properties nationalised under . Under Article 46 (binding force and The Court has already found over 3 execution of judgments), the Court decided 150 violations in cases of this kind , and to apply the pilot-judgment procedure, several hundred similar cases are pending finding that the applicants’ situation was before it. part of a general problem originating in a Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair structural dysfunction specific to the hearing) - concerning Mrs Atanasiu and Mrs Romanian prison system. Poenaru The Court held that the State should Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 introduce: (1) measures to reduce (protection of property) – concerning the overcrowding and improve the material three applicants conditions of detention; and (2) remedies In this pilot judgment, the Court adjourned (a preventive remedy and a specific the cases concerning properties compensatory remedy). nationalised during the communist era in The Court decided to adjourn the Romania pending general measures at examination of similar applications that had national level. A new extension of time-limit not yet been communicated to the for implementation of general measures to Romanian Government and to continue its resolve shortcomings in the system of examination of applications that had restitution or compensation in respect of already been communicated. Within six properties nationalised by the Romanian months from the date on which the State has been granted to the Romanian judgment became final, the Romanian Government. On 7 May 2013, the Court Government had to provide, in cooperation decided that the adjournment of its with the Committee of Ministers, a precise examination of all applications stemming timetable for the implementation of the from the same general problem would general measures. remain in force until the adoption of one or several lead decisions on the action taken Case examined by the Court following the by the Government in response to the pilot judgment procedure conducted in the Maria Atanasiu and Others pilot judgment. case Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania Case examined by the Court following the Polgar v. Romania pilot judgment procedure conducted in the 20.07.2021 case Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania The case concerned the conditions of Preda and Others v. Romania detention in Romanian prisons and the effectiveness of the domestic remedies, 29.04.2014 particularly the civil-law remedy of an The case concerned administrative and/or action in tort. judicial proceedings for compensation or There are currently about 5,000 similar restitution in respect of property cases pending before the Court. confiscated or nationalised by the Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of 3 inhuman or degrading treatment) having For example Viaşu v. Romania (09.12.2008), Katz v. regard to Mr Polgar’s material conditions of Romania (20.01. 2009) and Faimblat v. Romania (13.04.2009)

- 19 -

Press country profile – Romania

communist regime, in accordance with laws which assets were confiscated under the passed by Romania after the fall of the communist regime. regime in December 1989. Application declared inadmissible The Court held unanimously that the (manifestly ill-founded) complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dumitru and Others v. Romania (protection of property) should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as 19.09.2012 regards seven of the applications. The case concerned the decision to pay As regards application no. 3736/03, the allowances awarded by judicial decisions to Court held that there had been a violation members of the civil service (judges) in of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. instalments. The Court also concluded that, bearing in Application declared inadmissible (paying in mind the margin of appreciation enjoyed by instalments of allowances was not the Romanian State, the law enacted by the unreasonable) Romanian Parliament provided in principle Ioviţoni and others v. Romania – except in situations where there were 07.05.2012 multiple documents of title for the same Applicants charged a pollution tax building – an accessible and effective subsequently held to be in breach of framework of redress for alleged violations . of the right to peaceful enjoyment of Application declared inadmissible (the possessions, and that it was up to the applicants’ rights under the Convention claimants concerned to make use of that were not violated) framework. Tripon v. Romania Noteworthy cases, decisions 06.03.2012 Dismissal of a customs officer for extended delivered absence from work on account of his pre-trial detention. Mariș v. Romania Application declared inadmissible (no 22.10.2020 breach of the applicant’s human rights) The case concerned the refusal of the Romanian authorities to amend, upon a Mihăieş v. Romania and Senteş v. mere declaration by Mr Mariş, the entry Romania giving his religion in the register of 02.03.2012 Miercurea-Ciuc prison. The applicants complained of 25% salary Application declared inadmissible cuts for a period of six months in (manifestly ill-founded) application of a law introducing measures to balance the State’s budget. Nastase v. Romania Applications declared inadmissible (no 18.11.2014 breach of the applicants’ human rights) The case concerned the conviction of Adrian Nastase, former Prime Minister and former Zelca and Others v. Romania Minister for Foreign Affairs of Romania, by 29.09.2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for Complaint by Romanian civil servants using his influence as chairman of a political concerning unpaid salary. party in order to obtain financing for his Application declared inadmissible 2004 election campaign. Press release in Romanian Application declared inadmissible Farcaș v. Romania (manifestly ill-founded) 30.09.2010 Merschdorf v. Romania Physically handicapped applicant who 21.05.2013 complained that he could not access certain The case concerned the refusal of the and in particular, that civil cases Romanian authorities to allow foreign he wished to bring before the courts could citizens to recover the property rights of not be examined as he could not access assets their parents owned in Romania, court buildings.

- 20 -

Press country profile – Romania

Application declared inadmissible (neither Noteworthy pending cases the right of access to a court nor the right of individual petition had been hindered by insurmountable obstacles preventing the Chamber applicant from bringing proceedings) Article 3, Article 6, Article 8 (right to respect for private First application by the Court of the and family life), new admissibility criterion introduced Article 14 (prohibition of by Protocol No. 14 discrimination), and Article 2 of Protocol 1 (right to Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania education) 28.06.2010 Since the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 M.C. and Others v. Romania to the Convention on 1 June 2010, a new (no. 44654/18) admissibility criterion is applicable: an Case communicated to the Government on application is inadmissible where “the 28 February 2019 applicant has not suffered a significant The case concerns the authorities’ response disadvantage, unless respect for human to the allegations that the first applicant, a rights as defined in the Convention and the child suffering from a , was Protocols thereto requires an examination ill-treated and bullied at school by teachers of the application on the merits and and other pupils. It also concerns the right provided that no case may be rejected on to respect for the private and family life of this ground which has not been duly the second and third applicants, the first considered by a domestic tribunal”. applicant’s parents. In Mr Ionescu’s case the three conditions of the new inadmissibility test were satisfied: Article 6 the applicant had not suffered any (right to a fair trial) significant disadvantage (the alleged financial loss was limited), respect for Dragnea v. Romania (no. 75317/17) human rights did not require an Case communicated to the Government on examination of the application on the 23 2018 merits (the relevant legal provisions had The case concerns the lack of the signature been repealed) and the case had been on the final judgement of two out of the “duly considered” on the merits by the five judges who sat on the panel which Bucharest District Court. pronounced that judgment in the context of criminal proceedings against Mr Dragnea (the President of the and President of the ). Adrian Năstase v. Romania (no. 744/15) Case communicated to the Government on 27 November 2018 The applicant is a former prime minister of Romania. The application concerns the trial panel’s alleged lack of impartiality and the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings which led to the applicant’s conviction for blackmail and corruption.

Press contact: +33 (0) 3 90 21 42 08

- 21 -