Communicated on 1 September 2015
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 53173/10
Ioan HORHAT
against Romania
lodged on 4 August 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ioan Horhat, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Jidvei.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in 2006 the National Anticorruption Department (“the NAD”) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for embezzling European Union funds.
On an unspecified date in 2006 the NAD discontinued the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant on the ground that the acts committed by him had not met the level of severity of an offence and fined the applicant 10,000 Romanian Lei (RON) (approximately 2,800 euros (EUR)).
A year later, after the applicant had paid the fine, the NAD notified him that the criminal proceedings opened against him had been reopened. Subsequently, the applicant was indicted for embezzling European Union funds and his case was sent to trial.
By a final judgment of 11 March 2010 the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, with a stay of execution.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant part of the former Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the material time, reads as follows:
Article 2491
“ (3) The prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the criminal investigation on the basis of Article 10 letter b1 could be challenged within twenty days from the day of its notification (...).
(4) The execution of the prosecutor’s decision by which an administrative fine has been imposed is carried out after the expiry of the period stipulated in paragraph 3, and if a complaint has been filed and dismissed, after its dismissal.”
Article 273
“(1) The re-opening of the criminal investigation in case the discontinuance of the criminal investigation has been ordered, occurs only if one finds that the situation that determined the enforcement of this measure did not actually exist or the circumstance on which the discontinuance was based has disappeared (...).”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 that he was prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Can the fine paid by the applicant in 2006 be assimilated to a final conviction for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7? Has the applicant been tried or punished twice for the same offence within the meaning of that provision? If so, did the re-opened proceedings fall within the exceptions envisaged by the same article?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy