Communicated on 18 November 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 55312/13
Ionuț-Marius IONESCU
against Romania
lodged on 26 August 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ionuț-Marius Ionescu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1985.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant was arrested on 30 April 2010. He was caught red handed while transporting 1.422 kg of heroin from Istanbul to Bucharest.
By a judgment of 17 December 2010 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant and three other co-defendants of illegal possession and transport of high-risk drugs. It sentenced him to twenty‑one years’ imprisonment with the additional penalty of being barred from exercising his civil rights referred to in Article 64 letters (a), (b), (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code for a period of ten years. The court noted that it was not the first time that the applicant had transported high risk drugs. It concluded that by repetitively trafficking significant amounts of heroine the applicant showed an obvious disrespect for the law and the social values protected by criminal law.
The first-instance court imposed the additional penalty of the applicant’s disqualification from exercising his civil rights without providing any specific reasons to justify such a measure.
The applicant and his co-defendants lodged an appeal against the county court’s judgment. By a decision of 7 April 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The applicant’s appeal on points of law was partly allowed by a decision of 25 May 2012 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The appellate court upheld in substance the conviction but reduced the sentence to fourteen years’ imprisonment. It also maintained the additional penalty as imposed by the first-instance court.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, as in force at the relevant time, were worded as follows:
Article 64 – Additional penalties
“Disqualification from exercising one or more of the rights mentioned below may be imposed as an additional penalty:
(a) the right to vote and to be elected to bodies of a public authority or to public elective office;
(b) the right to occupy a position entailing the exercise of State authority;
(c) the right to perform a duty or practise a profession or activity by means of which the convicted person carried out the offence;
(d) parental rights;
(e) the right to act as a child’s guardian or statutory representative.”
Before the amendments brought by Law 278/2006 to the Criminal Code the measure of deprivation of parental rights was automatic upon the criminal courts’ finding of guilt (see Sabou and Pircalab v. Romania, no. 46572/99, § 46, 28 September 2004).
According to the amendments brought to Article 71 of the Criminal Code, applicable at the relevant time, the measure of deprivation of parental rights was not automatically imposed on the person sentenced to imprisonment. The court imposing such measure had the obligation to take into account the nature and the severity of the offence, the circumstances of the case and of the individual concerned and the interests of the child involved.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the deprivation of his parental rights only on the ground of his criminal conviction violated his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention. He claims that such measure was unlawful and unjustified.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of parental authority as an ancillary punishment to the domestic courts’ finding of guilt necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy