Published on 11 October 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 14680/15 Emanuel Ioan IUGA against Romania lodged on 12 March 2015 communicated on 24 September 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the criminal proceedings opened by the domestic authorities against the applicant for battery resulting in death. The proceedings ended with the final interlocutory judgment of the Maramureș County Court of 16 September 2014, which was sitting as a pre-trial judge. Relying exclusively on the evidence collected at the investigation stage of the proceedings, the pre-trial judge found that the applicant had committed the act of which he was accused. The pre-trial judge also confirmed the public prosecutor’s office’s decision of 16 April 2014 ordering (i) the closure of the proceedings against the applicant on the ground that he lacked the mental capacity to understand the consequences of his actions and (ii) the referral of the case to a court for an order to commit the applicant to a psychiatric institution against his will. The applicant was eventually committed against his will.

The applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention because the investigation authorities had dismissed his requests for evidence to be adduced to the case file, including requests concerning the hearing and confrontation of witnesses. In addition, the pre-trial judge proceedings took place in chambers, without the parties being present, were not oral and adversarial, breached the principle of equality of arms, and prevented him from obtaining, accessing and commenting on all the evidence relevant for the case and from having direct contact with and presenting his arguments before the judge.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the examination of his case? In particular, did the criminal proceedings, including the pre-trial judge proceedings, conducted by the authorities in his case respect the principles of publicity, oral hearing, equality of arms, immediacy, and of adversarial proceedings; and did they adequately safeguard the applicant’s right of defence in view of the fact that the investigation authorities had dismissed his requests for evidence to be adduced to the case file and that the pre-trial judge proceedings took place in chambers, without the parties being present, were not oral and adversarial and prevented him from obtaining, accessing and commenting on all the evidence relevant for the case and from having direct contact with and presenting his arguments before the judge?