FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3388/21
Cecilia ALEXANDRESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26 November 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Anne Louise Bormann, President,
Sebastian Răduleţu,
András Jakab, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 3388/21) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 December 2020 by a Romanian national, Ms Cecilia Alexandrescu, who was born in 1961 and lives in Bucharest (“the applicant”);
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant in violation of her rights under Article 6 of the Convention.
2. On 10 May 2018 the applicant prevented a bailiff from seizing her car.
3. On 8 October 2018 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with assaulting a public official, seal breaking, evading the seizure of assets and disturbing the public order and peace and sent her case to trial to the Bucharest District Court.
4. On 18 July 2019 the District Court convicted the applicant of the first three offences mentioned above and fined her 5,600 Romanian leu (RON) (1,184 euros (EUR)) and acquitted her of the fourth charge.
5. On 12 December 2019 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed appeals by both the prosecutor and the applicant, submitted by V.G., a lawyer of her own choosing, so that it can hear the bailiff and the witnesses on whose testimonies the District Court had acquitted the applicant of the fourth charge (see paragraph 3 above).
6. At a hearing held on 21 May 2020 V.G. asked the Court of Appeal to adjourn the examination of the witnesses. He argued that he was ill and could not represent the applicant and that he intended therefore to withdraw from the case. He explained that the applicant was absent from the hearing for professional reasons and that she had instructed him to question the witnesses only in her presence.
7. The Court of Appeal dismissed V.G.’s request. It held that the witnesses had already been summoned on several occasions and that they could be heard again if their testimonies were inconsistent. In addition, V.G. could remain seated during the hearing and the court was going to hear the parties’ oral pleadings on another date.
8. The Court of Appeal heard the bailiff and the witnesses and noted that V.G. refused to question them in the applicant’s absence. It adjourned the hearing for 18 June 2020 so that the applicant could attend.
9. Both the applicant and V.G. did not attend the hearing of 18 June 2020 which the Court of Appeal re-scheduled for 16 July 2020 due to V.G.’s illness. It also noted that that hearing (16 July 2020) would be held even in V.G.’s absence since legal assistance was not mandatory.
10. On an unspecified date the applicant informed V.G. that he would no longer represent her because he had misled her about his presence at the hearing of 21 May 2020 (see paragraphs 6-8 above).
11. Both the applicant and her lawyer did not appear at the hearing of 16 July 2020. The Court of Appeal heard the prosecutor’s oral arguments and ordered adjournment so that the parties could submit written comments.
12. On 17 and 21 July 2020 the applicant asked the Court of Appeal to reopen the proceedings alleging being denied her rights to defend herself in person or through effective legal assistance, as well as to submit evidence on the hearings of 21 May and 16 July 2020. She argued that since April 2020 she could hardly communicate with V.G. Also, he had misinformed the court about the reasons for her absence from the hearing of 21 May and had refused to question the witnesses. Moreover, the court held the hearing of 16 July in her absence even though she was waiting outside the hearing room since early in morning that day for the court to call her case, as instructed by a court security officer. The latter had informed her (i) that the court was calling cases as scheduled and (ii) that she could not wait inside the hearing room for her case to be called due to distancing measures put in place related to COVID‑19.
13. By a final judgment of 30 July 2020 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request. It held that she was responsible for her choice of V.G. to represent her and his alleged unprofessional conduct could not be a reason to reopen the proceedings. Moreover, there were two adjournments and the applicant could prepare her defence and submit written comments. Furthermore, her allegations that the court security officer had not allowed her to enter the hearing room outside of the time slot reserved for her case, namely between 1 and 2 p.m., were irrelevant. Her case was called for examination at 1.11 p.m. and the applicant was solely responsible for failing to enter the hearing room at 1 p.m. so that she could hear the call.
14. On the merits, the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction by the lower court for the first three offences mentioned above (see paragraph 3), overturned the applicant’s acquittal for the fourth charge and imposed a higher fine in the amount of RON 6,600 (EUR 1,366). As regards the fourth charge of which the court also convicted the applicant, it relied on video recording available in the case-file and on the testimonies of the persons described in paragraphs 5 and 8 above.
15. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of a violation of her rights to defend herself in person or through effective legal assistance, to adduce documentary evidence, to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on her behalf and to have witnesses against her examined under the same conditions as the prosecution, in relation to the hearings of 21 May and 16 July 2020 and the Court of Appeal’s decision not to reopen the proceedings.
16. She also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings because: (i) she had not been summoned to the hearings of 18 June and 16 July 2020; (ii) the courts had assessed the evidence wrongly; (iii) on 16 July 2020 she had been denied a public, oral and adversarial hearing of her case and access to a court because she had been denied access to the hearing room; and (iv) the president of the bench that delivered the last-instance judgment had lacked impartiality.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
Alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention
17. The Court considers that the main issues in the present case concern the applicant’s complaints described in paragraph 15 above.
18. The Court reiterates the general principles concerning the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 91 and 139-58, 18 December 2018; Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, §§ 119-26, 4 April 2018; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015; Alexandru-Radu Luca v. Romania, no. 20837/18, §§ 58-59, 14 June 2022; and Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland, no. 38797/17, §§ 34-38, 16 July 2019).
19. The applicant has not denied that during the first-instance proceedings she could adduce evidence, defend herself in person or through effective legal assistance of her own choosing, attend all hearings and obtain the attendance and the examination of all the witnesses in the cases. The District Court convicted the applicant of three of the offences of which she was charged and acquitted her of the fourth charge (see paragraph 3 above).
20. During the appeal proceedings the applicant admitted, without providing a precise timeline however, that she started having communication difficulties which V.G. sometime in April 2020, and that she disagreed with the manner in which he defended her soon thereafter (see paragraphs 10 and 12 above). However, she failed to inform the Court of Appeal of those problems or that V.G. no longer represented her earlier than 17 July 2020. Furthermore, she has not denied that she knew or at least could and should have known the exact time slot reserved by the Court of Appeal for the hearing of her case given that the information in question is generally displayed on the entrance of the hearing room and on the relevant court’s website. In any event, she arrived in the court building with a view to attend the hearing of 16 July 2020 held in the context of a global health crisis on her own volition and without being assisted by a new representative.
21. The applicant’s personal choices and conduct proved decisive for the manner in which she was able to take part in the proceedings and to exercise her rights of the defence given that legal assistance was not mandatory in her case (see paragraph 9 above).
22. In any event, the Court of Appeal allowed V.G.’s motion to hear witness evidence and took repeated and appropriate measures in order to give the applicant or her lawyer the opportunity to prepare her defence and participate effectively in the proceedings (see paragraphs 5-11 above). Moreover, it examined the applicant’s request to reopen the proceedings and dismissed it by providing reasons which do not appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see paragraphs 12-13 above). Lastly, it convicted the applicant of the fourth charge (see paragraph 3 above) on the basis of video recordings and the testimony of the witnesses on which the District Court had relied to acquit the applicant, only after it had heard directly all the witnesses in question (see paragraphs 5-6, 8 and 14 above).
23. It follows that the above complaints (see paragraph 15 above) are manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
24. As to the applicant’s remaining complaints (see paragraph 16 above), the Court has examined these complaints, as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as they fall within its jurisdiction, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 December 2024.
Simeon Petrovski Anne Louise Bormann
Deputy Registrar President