Published on 17 October 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 33254/17
Silviu Ionuț LUPU against Romania
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 27 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants, wherein they all have been acquitted by the first instance courts. However, on various dates set out in the appended table, the appellate courts have convicted them without, inter alia, re-hearing the witnesses on which the conviction was based, the applicants themselves and further newly proposed witnesses.
The applications may therefore raise issues in respect of the fairness of the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Găitănaru v. Romania, no. 26082/05, §§ 26-33, 26 June 2012, Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland, no. 38797/17, §§ 34-42, 16 July 2019; and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2), no. 57575/14, §§ 55-56, 10 November 2020).
In respect of applications nos. 35206/19 and 49695/19, the applicants also complain that by changing the legal classification of the charges against them from having committed murder into having been accomplices to murder, directly in the conviction judgment, without giving them the opportunity to put forward any related defence, the appellate court breached their rights provided for under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) of the Convention. The applicants’ extraordinary appeals challenging this issue were dismissed as ill-founded, essentially in so far as the said change did not worsen their position in the trial.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
In respect of all applications1. Before the court of last instance, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was their conviction by that court, after acquittal by the lower court, compatible with the requirements of the said article, considering, inter alia, that their conviction was based on the appellate court’s reconsideration of the facts established by the first instance court without a direct examination of relevant testimonial evidence and, where applicable, without hearing the newly proposed witnesses and the applicant (see Găitănaru v. Romania, no. 26082/05, § 32, 26 June 2012, Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland, no. 38797/17, §§ 34-42, 16 July 2019; and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2), no. 57575/14, § 55‑56, 10 November 2020)?
Applications nos. 35206/19 and 49695/192. Were the applicants informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and were they afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, §§ 42-63, ECHR 1999‑II), in view of the change by the appellate court in its judgment of the legal classification of the charges against them?
Appendix
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Final (conviction) judgment
1.
33254/17
Lupu v. Romania
21/04/2017
Silviu Ionuț LUPU
1983
Corcioveni
Romanian
Rodica Magdalena JALBĂ
Galaţi Court of Appeal,
03/10/2016,
notified on 11/11/2016
2.
28738/19
Rus v. Romania
09/05/2019
Călin RUS
1988
Luna
Romanian
Andrei POPESCU
Cluj Court of Appeal, 13/11/2018
3.
35206/19
Durleci v. Romania
19/06/2019
Dorel DURLECI
b:1972; d: 2021
Pursued by heirs
Mirela DURLECI (wife)
1975
Stoenești
Romanian
Laura-Andreea DURLECI (daughter)
2000
Mihǎești
Romanian
Doru-Vasile DURLECI (son; see application no. 49695/19 under 5. below)
1994
Craiova
Romanian
Florentin GHEORGHE-SORESCU
Pitești Court of Appeal,
01/11/2018, drafted on 21/12/2018
4.
41088/19
Galben v. Romania
25/07/2019
Ioan GALBEN
1982
Feldru
Romanian
Cluj Court of Appeal, 01/02/2019
5.
49695/19
Durleci v. Romania
20/06/2019
Doru-Vasile DURLECI
1994
Craiova
Romanian
Florentin GHEORGHE-SORESCU
See under 3. above