Cazuri impotriva Romaniei la Curtea Europeana

Coniac v. Romania (no. 4941/07)

The applicant, Victor Coniac, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Focsani

(Romania).

The case concerns Mr Coniac’s complaint that he was convicted of fraud in his absence without

being informed of the accusations against him or being heard by the investigating authorities or any

court.

In September 2003, criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Coniac, the administrator of

four commercial companies, on charges of fraud. The proceedings before the first-instance court

took place in Mr Coniac’s absence, as he had left Romania for Italy in June 2003. In May 2005, the

County Court found him guilty of fraud and imposed a three-year suspended sentence. On appeal

6

(by both parties) Mr Coniac claimed that his defence rights had not been observed as he had not

been notified of the accusations against him and had not been summoned to attend the hearing. In

December 2005, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor’s office in part

and increased Mr Coniac’s sentence. Mr Coniac appealed to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

He attended all the hearings but he was not heard by the court. The High Court held that Mr Coniac

could not rely on his absence from the proceedings by way of defence finding that he had left

Romania in order to avoid the investigation and the trial against him.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), Mr Coniac alleges, in particular, that the

criminal proceedings against him had not been fair in so far as he had been convicted without

evidence being heard directly either from him or from witnesses.

Marius Dragomir v. Romania (no. 21528/09)

The applicant, Marius Dragomir, is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in London.

The case concerns Mr Dragomir’s conviction on appeal without evidence being taken directly and

despite the fact that he had been acquitted at first instance on the basis of the same evidence.

On 30 June 2006 Mr Dragomir and two other individuals were committed for trial on charges of

aggravated rape. They were accused of raping N.B. in the flat belonging to one of them. The three

men did not deny having sexual relations with N.B., but claimed that they had been consensual and

that N.B. had been given money. The District Court acquitted Mr Dragomir and the other two men.

The County Court then set aside the first-instance judgment and convicted the three men of

aggravated rape. In the County Court’s view, the statements of the witnesses proposed by the

accused in order to demonstrate N.B.’s immoral character were untrue and were contradicted by

the medical documents. No evidence was taken at the appeal stage. Mr Dragomir was sentenced to

five and a half years’ imprisonment. He lodged a further appeal against the appellate judgment,

claiming that the Court of Appeal had convicted him without taking evidence directly and despite

the fact that he had been acquitted by the first-instance court on the basis of the same evidence. His

appeal was dismissed.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Dragomir complains that he did not have a fair trial,

alleging that he was convicted on appeal without evidence being taken directly and despite the fact

that he had been acquitted at first instance on the basis of the same evidence.

Mirea v. Romania (no. 19314/07)

The applicant, Călin Eusebiu Mirea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Braşov.

The case concerns Mr Mirea’s complaint that his conviction for, among other things, aiding and

abetting extremely aggravated murder was unfair as evidence of his role as an intelligence service

informant had been withheld during the criminal proceedings against him.

On 25 September 2002, Mr Mirea was contacted by M.V., a business man for whom he was working,

to go to headquarters. On arriving he discovered a severely beaten man begging M.V. for his life. The

man was driven away in the boot of his own car and murdered. Mr Mirea went to the scene of the

crime and drove the attackers back to their homes. Mr Mirea, who at the time was also providing

information on M.V’s business activities to the Romanian Intelligence Service (“the SRI”),

subsequently contacted S.S, an operative officer, and informed him of what had happened.

One of the participants in the murder later confessed to the police and a criminal investigation was

launched. Mr Mirea was informed in October 2003 that he was accused of aiding and abetting illegal

deprivation of liberty and extremely aggravated murder. He was convicted in November 2004 as

charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Throughout the criminal proceedings,

Mr Mirea argued that he had only been present at the murder scene as he had infiltrated M.V.’s

group as an informant on behalf of the SRI and had felt coerced by M.V. into participating in the

7

crime. The County Court acknowledged that Mr Mirea was transmitting information on M.V.’s group

to officer S.S., however noted that the SRI denied that they had actually infiltrated him into the

group or that the information he had provided about the murder had been the result of

collaboration with the intelligence services. The County Court decided that as such, Mr Mirea could

not benefit from any status as an SRI informant. This judgment was subsequently upheld by the

Braşov Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal’s decision was then upheld by the Braşov High Court

of Cassation and Justice.

Mr Mirea requested a revision of the final decision on the basis that it was impossible to prove

before the ordinary courts that he was an SRI informant. In November 2008, the County Court

acquitted Mr Mirea on both counts. However, that judgment was then quashed on appeal.

Mr Mirea’s appeal was finally dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in October 2010.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Mirea complains about the

unfairness and excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleges that

it was impossible for him to present his case and make his defence as evidence to explain why he

had been present at the murder scene – namely to collect information for the SRI – was withheld by

the intelligence services.

By

Robert Williams

Editor in Chief

News24.7WorldPress