Published on 29 September 2025
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 16559/23
Mihai-Adrian KULISZKO
against Romania
lodged on 19 April 2023
communicated on 10 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the seizure as evidence (ridicarea de obiecte) of 44,000 US dollars (USD) and 317,000 euros (EUR) belonging to the applicant in the context of an investigation pending against third parties, and the alleged impossibility of the applicant to contest the impugned measure and its duration. The criminal investigation started on 29 June 2021 and is still pending before the competent prosecutor. The seizure measure was adopted by the police on the same date and is still in force. All complaints lodged by the applicant against the measure were rejected either by the prosecutor as ill-founded, or by the courts, as being lodged outside the statutory time-limit for complaints against seizure of assets imposed as a precautionary measure.
Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that domestic law did not provide for the right of access to a court regarding seizure of property as evidence, unlike seizure as a precautionary measure.
Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention he complained that he had been deprived of his property for an excessive period of time without any possibility to put his case before the authorities. He also submitted that the seizure of his money as evidence was not in accordance with law and had been used by the authorities in order to avoid taking a precautionary measure that would have been accompanied by procedural safeguards.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, stemming from the seizure of his goods as evidence in criminal proceedings against a third party?
2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant given the duration of the period over which the measure has been applied (see Cernea v. Romania, no. 7486/12, §§ 46-50, 18 December 2018)?
3. Furthermore, bearing in mind the procedural obligations contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the State’s obligation to ensure in its domestic legal order that the right to property is sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies enable the victims of an infringement in this respect to assert their rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v. Romania, no. 38072/11, § 78, 21 July 2020), did the applicant have a reasonable opportunity to present his case to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measure interfering with his right of property?
In particular, does the legal framework allow for interested parties, such as the applicant (who was not a party to the investigation), to participate in the criminal proceedings against third parties in order to challenge the measure (the seizure as evidence) and its duration? In the affirmative, was this possibility open to the applicant?
In a situation where ownership of the assets subject to the measure taken in the present case is claimed by someone, such as the applicant, who was not a party to the criminal proceedings in question, does the legal framework allow for other possibilities to vindicate their property rights, for example to seek compensation in civil proceedings (acțiunea în răspundere civilă delictuală)? If so, were these avenues open to the applicant and at what stage of the criminal proceedings?
The parties are asked to support their arguments in respect of the above questions with examples of relevant domestic case-law.