Communicated on 4 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 60858/15
Alexandru Marian IANCU
against Romania
lodged on 4 December 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Alexandru Marian Iancu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Rahova Prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 16 December 2014 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant for money laundering, complicity to fraud, incitement to abuse of office and setting up an organised criminal group and sentenced him to thirteen years and eight months imprisonment.
4. The applicant, who had been placed in pre-trial detention, appealed against that judgment.
5. On 11 May 2015 the appeal proceedings started before a panel of two judges of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, C.B. and D.D.
6. On 20 May 2015 a request from a co-defendant challenging for bias the above-mentioned two judges was allowed by the Court of Appeal. As regards C.B., the court held that there were reasonable suspicions concerning her impartiality in the case since she had been member of the panel who convicted with final effect the same defendants in a previous case on 14 October 2014. The two judges were excluded from dealing with the case which was then randomly distributed to another panel of two judges, M.M.A. and G.T.
7. On 2 June 2015 M.M.A. submitted to the president of the Court of Appeal a request for abstention from the examination of the case because he had also been member of the panel who convicted with final effect the same defendants on 14 October 2014. The request was examined by a panel of two judges, G.T. and O.B., who decided to reject it as ill-founded.
8. At the hearing of 3 June 2015 in the appeal proceedings the applicant’s representative lodged before the panel formed of judges M.M.A. and G.T. a request challenging judge M.M.A. for bias. The applicant’s representative alleged that the same reasoning which had lead the court to exclude judge C.B. from dealing with the case also applied to judge M.M.A. The request was rejected as inadmissible by the panel formed of judges M.M.A. and G.T. since the issue had already been decided.
9. At the next hearing, on 4 June 2015, the applicant insisted in challenging judge M.M.A and disobeyed the court’s order to remain silent. The court decided to sanction the applicant for contempt of court and ordered his removal from the hearing room.
10. The applicant alleged that, after his removal from the hearing he had been held for ten hours in the basement of the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a room without furniture, without possibility to sit down and without being given water or food.
11. On 8 June 2015 the panel formed of judges M.M.A. and G.T. rejected the applicant’s appeal. His conviction thus became final.
B. Relevant domestic law
12. The relevant provisions of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, as in force at the relevant time, read as follows:
Article 64
Incompatible judges
“(1) Judges are incompatible:
...
f). if there is a reasonable suspicion of bias on their behalf.”
Article 66 § 1
Abstention
“(1) Persons concerned by an incompatibility reason are obliged to inform the president of the court that they intend to abstain from the examination of a case and to expose the reasons for their abstention.”
Article 68 § 2
Examination of the abstention or recusal
“(2) The abstention or recusal of a judge who is part of a panel shall be examined by another panel.”
COMPLAINTS
13. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions in which he was held on 4 June 2015 for ten hours at the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
14. The applicant considers that the panel which heard his appeal was not an “impartial tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He alleges that judge M.M.A. could not be regarded as impartial since he participated in the panel who convicted him for similar crimes in previous proceedings. Moreover, the judge himself had admitted his lack of neutrality, having sought his own withdrawal from the case; however, this request was rejected.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on 4 June 2015 during the time he has been excluded from the hearing at the Bucharest Court of Appeal?
2. Having regard to the fact that the request for abstention filed by Judge M.M.A. was rejected, was the panel which heard the applicant’s appeal against his conviction an “impartial tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy