FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38504/18
Ilie PETRESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 March 2026 as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 38504/18) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 31 July 2018 by a Romanian national, Mr Ilie Petrescu (“the applicant”), who was born in 1953, lives in Râmnicu-Vâlcea and was represented by Ms M.C. Beniog, a lawyer practising in Râmnicu-Vâlcea;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the fairness of proceedings and of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the confiscation of assets belonging to the applicant – a head of department in a public hospital – which were deemed by a court in civil proceedings to be unexplained, on the basis of the Romanian legal framework on integrity in public office. It raises issues under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
2. On 17 September 2012 the National Integrity Agency (Agenția Națională de Integritate, “the ANI”) noted that the applicant, in his capacity as a public servant, had not complied with the legal requirement to fill in declarations of assets pursuant to Law no. 115/1996 on the declaration of assets and the verification of assets of dignitaries, members of the judiciary, people holding management positions and public servants (“Law no. 115/1996”). As a result, on the basis of Article 12 §§ 1 and 2 of Law no. 176/2010 on integrity in public office (“Law no. 176/2010”), the ANI started a procedure to verify the applicant’s assets.
3. At the end of the verification procedure, during which the applicant presented his arguments and submitted documents through a lawyer of his own choice, the ANI concluded that there had been a significant difference totalling 484,117 euros (EUR) between the applicant’s income and expenses in the years 2007 to 2011. The case was sent to the Commission for the Verification of Assets attached to the Pitești Court of Appeal (“the Commission”), in view of the opening of verification proceedings under Article 18 of Law no. 176/2010.
4. After hearing the applicant, in the presence of his lawyer, and the witnesses he proposed, and after examining the written evidence submitted (including expert accounting reports), the Commission considered that the applicant had not supported with evidence his allegations that most of his assets had been accumulated during the communist regime before 1989 and that the remaining part had subsequently been obtained from agricultural activities and the reimbursement of loans from private persons. However, it considered that EUR 4,136 of the amount put forward by the ANI had been explained, and it deducted that amount from the total. The Commission notified the Pitești Court of Appeal of its conclusions under Article 104 § 1 (a) of Law no. 115/1996 so that a decision could be taken regarding whether to confiscate the amount that had not been explained.
5. After reviewing all evidence adduced, including certain documents and a new expert accounting report that the applicant submitted for the first time before it, and hearing the parties’ arguments, the Pitești Court of Appeal considered that there was sufficient evidence that the applicant had failed to explain the source of the EUR 479,981 and ordered the confiscation of that amount, pursuant to Article 18 of Law no. 115/1996. The court explained that the applicant had failed to fill in correctly his declarations of assets. The income that he had allegedly gained before 1989 as explained by him (see paragraph 4 above) had not been mentioned in his declarations of assets, as required by law. In addition, the witness statements provided to the court had not been corroborated by any written evidence. Lastly, it found that that the verification by the administrative bodies (ANI and the Commission) had been in accordance with the law and the Constitutional Court’s case‑law.
6. An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant against the above‑mentioned judgment was partially allowed, with final effect, by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 19 February 2018. The court examined the entire file and found that the proceedings had been in accordance with the law, and that the applicant had been informed of the verification carried out by the ANI and had had ample opportunity to present his arguments before that body, which had thoroughly examined them in its report. The court further held that an additional amount had been explained by witness statements, which had been corroborated with documents. Accordingly, it ordered the confiscation of a reduced amount of EUR 379,981.
7. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the unfairness of the confiscation proceedings in that he had been forced to bear an excessive burden of proof, in breach of the constitutional principle that property was presumed to have been acquired in a licit manner. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a disproportionate interference with his property rights owing to the confiscation.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention8. The Court firstly reiterates its well-established case-law that in cases such as the present one, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable under its civil head (see Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, §§ 45-46, 10 April 2012; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 121, 12 May 2015; and Păcurar v. Romania, no. 17985/18, § 140, 24 June 2025).
9. The Court has previously examined the applicable Romanian legal framework (see Păcurar, cited above, §§ 72-87) and proceedings for the confiscation of unexplained assets provided by that legal framework and found them to be in compliance with the fair‑trial guarantees set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 146-57). In this regard, the Court has held that proceedings for the verification of assets are carried out on the basis of the general rules of civil procedure and the domestic legislation gives those whose assets are being verified ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings from the outset (ibid., §§ 155-56).
10. In the present case, the applicant (who was represented by a lawyer of his choice) had ample opportunity to present his arguments on points of fact and law before the administrative bodies and the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. He received thoroughly reasoned replies to all his allegations and requests, in the absence of any arbitrariness and in compliance with the applicable law (see paragraphs 3-6 above). The courts duly examined and responded to the applicant’s arguments in the light of the available evidence and concluded that certain assets had not been explained by him (see paragraphs 5‑6 above).
11. In the light of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant’s right to a fair trial was not breached in the present case. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention12. The Court points out that it has already examined similar complaints and found the impugned confiscation measure to be in compliance with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Păcurar, cited above, §§ 168-201).
13. In the present case, it also finds that the impugned measure was prescribed by law (Article 18 of Law no. 115/1996, see paragraph 5 above) and effected in accordance with the general interest of intensifying the fight against corruption and preserving integrity in public office. Moreover, the measure had its basis in a legal framework adopted in order to comply with the requirements of the rule of law put forward by the European Commission in the context of Romania’s accession to the European Union (see Păcurar, cited above, §§ 179 and 182).
14. As regards the proportionality of the measure at stake, the Court refers to its findings in Păcurar (cited above, §§ 183-201), which likewise apply to the present case.
15. Accordingly, it notes that on the basis of Laws nos. 115/1996 and 176/2010 – which pursued the aims indicated above – the applicant, as a public servant, was under an obligation to declare his assets and explain their source. The applicable legal framework and the domestic courts’ consistent and unified interpretation of that framework indicate that failing to do so would cast doubt on the licit source of the assets in question (see Păcurar, cited above, § 101) and trigger the need to apply sanctions in order to preserve the scope of the law. The applicant failed to respect the legal provisions on declarations of assets and therefore the procedure aimed at verifying the source of his assets was started (see paragraphs 2 and 5 above).
16. The Court further notes that the proceedings in question followed the clear, foreseeable and generally applicable rules of civil procedure and respected the fair‑trial guarantees under Article 6 (see paragraph 11 above). The measure in question was applied on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence submitted to the courts by both the applicant and the ANI, in proceedings in which the applicant’s full participation was ensured before two levels of jurisdiction (see paragraphs 3-6 above). The applicant’s personal circumstances were fully taken into account by the courts, which accepted evidence submitted by him and also by his witnesses, including several expert reports. The confiscation measure was applied only after several steps of verification, and after the courts had formed the opinion that there were significant differences between the applicant’s income and his assets and that he had not fulfilled his obligation to declare the total amount of his income. On that point, the Court notes that some of the arguments and evidence produced by the applicant to explain the origin of some of his assets were accepted by the Commission and the courts, and led to certain amounts being deducted from the total sum to be confiscated from him (see paragraphs 4 and 6 above).
17. In view of the above, the Court considers that the impugned proceedings in the present case provided the applicant with sufficient safeguards so as to ensure the proportionality of the measure, and it cannot be concluded that the measure was applied automatically, that the applicant had no opportunity to argue his case or that the domestic courts’ findings were tainted with manifest arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis, Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 81, 26 June 2018).
18. In the light of the foregoing and having regard to the Romanian authorities’ wide margin of appreciation in their pursuit of the policy designed to combat corruption in the public service, the Court concludes that the proceedings for the confiscation of the applicant’s property, which were based on a procedure which was moreover in line with the relevant international standards (see paragraph 13 above), did not upset the requisite fair balance between the protection of the right of property and the requirements of the general interest (see Păcurar, cited above, § 200).
19. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill‑founded, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 April 2026.
Simeon Petrovski Faris Vehabović
Deputy Registrar President