Communicated on 28 July 2020
Published on 17 August 2020
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 31237/14
S.C. ECOREC S.A. and Victor DOMBROVSCHI
against Romania
lodged on 16 April 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application originated in the seizure measures in force since 7 August 2013, ordered by an Italian court and enforced by a Romanian prosecutor, concerning all the applicant company’s movable and immovable assets and bank accounts and the applicant’s shares in the applicant company pending a criminal investigation initiated by the Italian authorities into allegations of fraud and money laundering by the mafia. The applicant and the applicant company alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that their right of access to court was breached by the Romanian authorities because they could challenge the lawfulness of the seizure measures and of their enforcement only before a prosecutor who ignored their arguments and because their repeated attempts to bring their above-mentioned challenge before the courts were dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction without an examination of the substantive arguments raised by them. The applicant and the applicant company alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their property rights were breached because the enforcement by the Romanian authorities of the seizure measures was done in breach of the relevant national and international legislation and affected their financial well-being as the applicant company’s assets and bank accounts as well as the applicant’s shares in the applicant company could no longer be used for a considerable period of time. Lastly, the applicant and the applicant company alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that the proceedings, including the court proceedings, brought by them before the Romanian authorities against the seizure measures and their enforcement, did not provide them with an effective remedy for the alleged breaches of their Convention rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s and the applicant company’s right of access to court breached by the Romanian authorities because they could challenge the lawfulness of the seizure measures and of their enforcement only before a prosecutor and because their repeated attempts to bring their above-mentioned challenge before the courts were dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and without an examination of the substantive arguments raised by them?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s and the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the fact that the domestic authorities have seized all the movable and immovable assets and bank accounts of the applicant company and all the applicant’s shares in the applicant company?
If so, was that interference in compliance with the conditions set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as interpreted in the Court’s jurisprudence?
3. Did the proceedings, including the court proceedings, brought by the applicant and the applicant company before the Romanian authorities, against the seizure measures and their enforcement provide them with an effective remedy for the alleged breaches of their Convention rights?
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of establishment/
Birth year
Nationality
Place of registration/
residence
1
S.C. ECOREC S.A.
2001
Romanian
Popeşti-Leordeni
2
Victor DOMBROVSCHI
1953
Romanian
Bucharest
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy