Communicated on 5 December 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 44489/15 and 45670/15
Daniela DOBRILĂ against Romania
and Dana Maria VODISLAV against Romania
lodged on 1 September 2015 and 10 September 2015 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant in the first case, Ms Daniela Dobrilă, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Focşani.
The applicant in the second case, Ms Dana Maria Vodislav, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Târgu Jiu.
Both applicants are represented before the Court by Mr I. Panaitescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 44489/15
On 13 March 2014 the applicant was indicted for corruption crimes committed in her functions as public servant.
On 14 March 2014 the prosecutor lodged a request for the applicant’s placement in detention on remand with the Cluj County Court. The rights and liberties judge dealing with the request considered that it was not necessary to place the applicant in detention. However, the applicant was placed under house arrest for a period of thirty days.
The Cluj County Court prolonged the preventive measure against the applicant on a monthly basis. All of the applicant’s objections to the prolongation of the house arrest were constantly dismissed by the court.
On 1 July 2015 the county court held that such a restrictive measure was no longer necessary in the applicant’s case and released her under supervision.
2. Application no. 45670/15
On 25 February 2014 the applicant was indicted for corruption crimes committed in her functions as public servant. The applicant was placed under house arrest for a period of thirty days on 19 February 2014 by decision of the Gorj County Court.
The measure was prolonged on a monthly basis by the domestic court. All of the applicant’s objections to the prolongation of the house arrest were constantly dismissed by the court.
On 5 May 2015 the Gorj County Court held that such a restrictive measure was no longer necessary in the applicant’s case and released her under supervision.
B. Relevant domestic law
The pertinent provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the relevant time are as follows:
Article 202
Purpose and applicability of the preventive measures
“(4) The preventive measures are:
a) arrest;
b) release under supervision;
c) bail;
d) house arrest;
e) detention on remand.”
Article 222
Length of house arrest
“(1) During the criminal investigation the preventive measure of house arrest may be ordered for a period of maximum thirty days.
(2) House arrest may be prolonged during the criminal investigation if necessary, only if the reasons for adopting the measure continue to exist. Each extension cannot go beyond thirty days. ...
(9) The overall length of house arrest during the criminal investigation is 180 days.”
Article 239
Maximum length of pre-trial detention during the proceedings before the first instance court
“(1) The overall length of the detention on remand during the proceedings before the first instance court must be reasonable and shall not exceed half of the maximum punishment for the crime under trial. In all cases the length of the pre-trial detention during the proceedings before the first instance court shall not exceed five years.”
On 7 May 2015 the Constitutional Court of Romania adopted the decision no. 361 which entered into force on 12 June 2015. In this decision the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code governing the preventive measure of house arrest were unconstitutional in that they failed to provide for a maximum overall length of the measure when it had been taken during the proceedings before the first instance court, as was the case for the detention on remand.
The Criminal Procedure Code was subsequently amended by Government Ordinance no. 24/2015 in order to reflect the decision of the Constitutional Court. The amended text of Article 222, which entered into force on 30 June 2015, mentioned that the provisions of Article 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code governing the measure of detention on remand during the trial also applied to house arrest.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain that their house arrest, in so far as it had been effected after their indictment and prolonged over the initial thirty days period in the absence of an overall maximum length provided by law, had not been “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the conditions for the applicants’ house arrest as provided by the domestic law meet the standard of “lawfulness” set by this provision (see Savca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 17963/08,
15 March 2016)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy