Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244
October 2020
Frâncu v. Romania - 69356/13
Judgment 13.10.2020 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Refusal, in a corruption case against a mayor, to hear in private an application for release on health grounds: violation
Facts – The applicant was remanded in custody in connection with an investigation concerning the award of public procurement contracts in his capacity as mayor. He asked the Court of Appeal to examine his appeal against his detention in private, as had been the case at first instance, explaining that: (i) the presence of the public and media could be detrimental to his right to be presumed innocent; and (ii) as his application for release was prompted by considerations relating to his health, the public nature of the hearing and the disclosure of his medical information would infringe his right to respect for his private life.
The Court of Appeal denied his request on the grounds that the case did not correspond to any of the situations which by law justified a private hearing. At a public sitting that court ordered his continued detention, finding that the various health problems on which he relied had not previously prevented him from exercising his official duties. Articles with an ironic tone were published in the press.
Law – Article 8
The failure by the Court of Appeal to ensure the confidentiality of the applicant’s medical information could be seen as an interference with his right to respect for his private life. The refusal to examine his appeal against his detention in private could be regarded as having the aim of protecting the “rights and freedoms of others” in view of the public interest in examining requests for release in open court.
The Court had previously held that criminal proceedings should be conducted in a manner that did not unduly prejudice the rights of victims or witnesses under Article 8. In such proceedings certain measures could be taken to protect victims, provided they struck an appropriate balance with the effective exercise of defence rights (Y. v. Slovenia, 41107/10, 28 May 2015, Information Note 185).
The same principles applied mutatis mutandis where, in the context of criminal proceedings, there was a clash, as in the present case, between the public interest in ensuring the transparency of judicial proceedings and the defendant’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of medical information. The Court of Appeal thus had to strike a balance between these competing interests.
The Code of Criminal Procedure allowed domestic courts to examine a case in private (with the consequence, under their rules of procedure, that access by third parties to the file would be restricted) in cases where a public hearing would be detrimental to a person’s private life. This was precisely what the applicant had argued.
In the Court’s view the Court of Appeal, by merely mentioning, without further explanation, that the case at hand did not correspond to “any of the situations” foreseen in the relevant provision of the above-mentioned Code, had not given relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision.
As to the public’s alleged interest in a corruption case concerning an elected representative, the Court found that, even assuming that the notoriety of a defendant could be one of the factors to be taken into account in analysing the proportionality of a request for a case to be heard in private, it was clear in the present case that no individual examination of the proportionality of such a measure had been carried out by the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the medical information disclosed had no bearing on the merits of the charges against the applicant.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
(See also L.L. v. France, 7508/02, 10 October 2006, Information Note 90 and Z. v. Finland, 22009/93, 25 February 1997, Information Note)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy