Communicated on 20 November 2019
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 35499/17
Alexandrina MLADIN
against Romania
lodged on 6 May 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the seizure (for the purpose of subsequent confiscation) of the applicant’s property in the course of a criminal investigation against another person. It also concerns the impossibility for the applicant of contesting the seizure separately during the investigation. The measure, ordered by the prosecutor on 7 July 2016, concerned a house and the surrounding land owned by the applicant. The measure is still valid as the proceedings are ongoing.
According to Article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the relevant time, the seizure could be contested before the prosecutor or the courts. In its decision no. 71/2007, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that the seizure could be contested only before the prosecutor while the investigation was ongoing and before the courts once the investigation was concluded and the case was sent to trial. In application of this decision, the applicant’s complaint against the seizure order had been rejected as inadmissible by the Bucharest County Court on 9 November 2016.
The applicant complains that her right of access to court had been breached and that the excessively lengthy seizure of her property constitutes a breach of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the judgment of 9 November 2016 of the Bucharest County Court, rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s complaint against the seizure order of 7 July 2016, in breach of the applicant’s right of access to court as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
3. If so, was that interference lawful and did it strike a fair balance between the protection of the applicant’s right to property and the requirements of the general interest?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy