Published on 6 April 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 21694/20 Marian MOROȘANU-TIVILIC against Romania and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 18 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

All applications originated in administrative fines imposed on the applicants as a result of participating in different public protests. The applicants described themselves as active participants in various demonstrations against actions taken by the Government or other public institutions and supporters of a non-governmental organisation promoting transparency and accountability in the manner public institutions work and interact with ordinary citizens.

The applicant in application no. 21694/20 was fined on 25 August 2018 because he had participated in a gathering at the Arc de Triomphe in Bucharest which had not been notified to the authorities and had refused to obey the gendarmes ’ instructions to leave. The applicant was protesting against the violent manner in which the Romanian Gendarmery had quashed the large demonstrations that had taken place two weeks earlier against important criminal law changes promoted by the Government and affecting the Justice system. By a final judgment of 21 October 2019 (available to the applicant on 22 November 2019) the Bucharest County Court (“the County Court”) upheld the fine imposed on him. It held among other things that the evidence adduced by the applicant had not rebutted the findings of the report fining him and the relevant national law did not recognise the peaceful nature of the protest as a ground for exonerating the applicant.

The applicant in application no. 43132/20 was fined on 25 February 2019 because he had participated in a protest in front of the Ministry of Justice and had thrown eggs on its walls. The applicant was protesting against the Minister of Justice ’ s decisions to endorse Government Emergency Ordinances which he considered were changing criminal legislation in a manner affecting the rule of law. By a final judgment of 12 December 2019 (available to the applicant on 17 January 2020) the County Court upheld the fine imposed on him on the ground that it had been lawful according to the relevant national legal provisions.

The applicant in application no. 43137/20 was fined on 4 July 2018 because he had taken part in a gathering organised in front of the Government ’ s building, had disturbed the public peace by making noise and had refused to identify himself to the officers fining him. The applicant was protesting against Government endorsed changes to criminal legislation affecting the Justice system. By a final judgment of 10 December 2019 (available to the applicant on 21 May 2020) the County Court upheld the fine imposed on him in part on the grounds that he had refused to identify himself and the gendarmes had had the right to ask for his documents as they had considered his actions to be unlawful.

The applicants in applications nos. 21694/20 and 43137/20 alleged that the court proceedings examining their challenges against the fines imposed on them had been unfair and had breached their right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. They complained that the courts, acting with bias and ignoring the evidence adduced by them, had reversed the burden of proof and imposed on them a duty to prove their innocence.

The applicants in all the applications alleged that the County Court ’ s judgments upholding the fines imposed on them for protesting peacefully had breached their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly provided for by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They complained that, in its review of the measures taken against the applicants, the domestic court had given greater weight to the relevant domestic law than to the relevant case-law of this Court. In addition, the applicant in application no. 43132/20 alleged that the classification of his actions as contraventions falling under the provisions of Law no. 61/1991 on the punishment of actions breaching social norms and public order had been unlawful and the applicant in application no. 43137/20 alleged that the reasons relied on by the authorities for the fine imposed on him had been inexistent.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants in applications nos. 21694/20 and 43137/20 have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants ’ cases dealt with by an impartial tribunal which took into account the evidence adduced by them and respected their right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?

2. In respect of all applications, has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 and/or Article 11 § 2 of the Convention (see, Karademirci and Others v. Turkey , nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, 25 January 2005; Bukta and Others v. Hungary , no. 25691/04, 17 July 2007; Fáber v. Hungary , no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012; and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, 15 November 2018)?

APPENDIX

List of applications

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

1.

21694/20

Moroșanu-Tivilic v. Romania

30/04/2020

2.

43132/20

Daraban v. Romania

10/09/2020

3.

43137/20

Cârstoiu v. Romania

10/09/2020