FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 61709/13 Marcel SAVANIU against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 61709/13) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 September 2013 by a Romanian national, Mr Marcel Savaniu, who was born in 1964 and lives in Brasov (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr I. Matei, a lawyer practising in Bucharest;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the length of the prohibition on leaving country imposed on the applicant for the duration of the criminal proceedings against him, to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O. F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1 . The applicant, a football assistant referee, was under criminal investigations for alleged acts of corruption, along with thirteen other referees and football club owners, in connection with allegations of match ‑ fixing. On 8 May 2009 the PiteÅŸti Court of Appeal imposed on him a prohibition on leaving the town, in accordance with Article 160 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at that time (“the CCP”). It considered that the evidence gave rise to the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question; he represented a danger to public order; and the measure was necessary for the proper administration of justice.

2. On 11 December 2009 the Prahova County Court replaced the measure with a ban on leaving the country. It took note that the applicant’s new job required him to travel within the country and that he had so far complied in good faith with the measures imposed by the judicial control.

3 . On 17 November 2009, 23 April 2010, 9 March 2012, 11 April and 9 May 2013, and 21 March and 19 November 2014, the applicant lodged applications to have the ban on leaving the town and subsequently that on leaving the country lifted, arguing that he needed to travel abroad for his work, and also that those measures had overall lasted too long. On each occasion the Prahova County Court and the PloieÅŸti Court of Appeal – first ‑ instance and appeal court respectively – dismissed his requests as unjustified and considered that the measure was still necessary for the conduct of the investigations, in order to secure the applicant’s presence in court. Moreover, the applicant had not proved that he needed to travel and that his right to work had been breached. The courts also considered that the authorities had not protracted the procedure and thus the length of the ban had not been caused by their fault.

4. The ban on leaving the country remained in place until 4 February 2015 when the PloieÅŸti Court of Appeal adopted the final decision in the case, acquitting the applicant on the grounds that he had not committed any crime.

5. Relying on several Articles of the Convention, the applicant complained that the prohibition on leaving the town and then the country had not been justified and had lasted too long.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

6. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law of the facts of the case ( Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018) and having regard to its long-standing case ‑ law on similar matters, the Court will examine the applicant’s complaint from the viewpoint of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see Căşuneanu v. Romania (dec.), no. 22018/10, § 52, 7 June 2011).

7. The general principles relating to the State’s obligations under this Article were summarised by the Court in Rosengren v. Romania (no. 70786/01, § 33, 24 April 2008).

8. It is undisputed that the measure constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of movement. It was nevertheless lawful as it relied on the provisions of the CCP (see paragraph 1 above) and pursued the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4, in particular, the prevention of crime and the protection of the public safety. (ibid., § 34).

9. The mere duration of the measure, that is five years and nine months, is insufficient for the Court to conclude that it was disproportionate (see Bulea v. Romania , no. 27804/10, § 62, 3 December 2013, with further references).

10. That measure was imposed by a court in proceedings whose fairness had not been challenged and after examination of the applicant’s situation and the needs of the criminal proceedings. The applicant had the opportunity to contest the application of the measure. The courts examined his submissions, and convincingly found that the continued restriction of the applicant’s freedom of movement was justified as it was still necessary for the conduct of the investigations, in order to secure the applicant’s presence in court; they also assessed the overall length of that restriction and did not find any fault (see paragraph 3 above and, mutatis mutandis , Popoviciu v. Romania , no. 52942/09, §§ 92-93, 1 March 2016). The courts also took into consideration the applicant’s allegations that he needed to travel for his work, but found them unjustified (see paragraph 3 above). The reasons thus given, were relevant and sufficient (see Khlyustov v. Russia , no. 28975/05, § 84, 11 July 2013).

11. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 December 2021.

Ilse Freiwirth Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer Deputy Registrar President