Communicated on 12 June 2020
Published on 29 June 2020
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 17985/18
Ioan PĂCURAR
against Romania
lodged on 10 April 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the fairness of the special proceedings for the assessment, by an administrative body – the National Integrity Agency – and subsequently by the courts, of the origin of the applicant’s wealth acquired in his capacity of public servant, proceedings based on the provisions of Law no. 176/2010 on integrity in the exercise of public functions and Law no. 144/2007 of the National Integrity Agency. The assessment was finalised with the confiscation of the equivalent of 55.000 euros from the applicant by a decision of the High Court of Justice and Cassation of 1 March 2017 as the applicant could not prove the lawful origin of his assets in compliance with the provisions of Law no. 115/1996 on the declaration and control of the wealth of dignitaries, magistrates, public servants and certain persons with managerial positions.
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant, who was at the time of the events chief of a county police office, complains essentially of the fact that he had to bear the burden of proof as regards the lawful origin of his wealth, although by a decision of the Constitutional Court no. 415 of 14 April 2010 this obligation together with other provisions of Law no. 144/2007 had been declared unconstitutional. He considers that the proceedings in his case, finalised with the confiscation of his assets based on the impossibility to justify their lawful origin, were in breach of the principle that property is presumed to have been acquired lawfully, set forth in Article 44 of the Romanian Constitution.
The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a disproportionate interference with his property rights due to the confiscation ordered in the context of an unconstitutional law, in the absence of a criminal conviction or of proof of the unlawful origin of the assets and at the outset of unfair proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
3. If so, was that interference lawful and did it strike a fair balance between the protection of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and the requirements of the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria, no. 12655/09, 3 June 2015)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy