Communicated on 24 February 2020 Published on 16 March 2020

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 20837/18 Alexandru -Radu LUCA against Romania lodged on 14 September 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application originated in criminal proceedings opened by the authorities against the applicant for four acts of complicity to fraud allegedly committed when he was working as a loans broker and he was assisting private persons to obtain loans from a bank. On 20 August 2014 the pre-trial judge called to examine the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s indictment and of the evidence collected in the case-file declared the indictment valid and the evidence lawful and ordered the beginning of the trial . By a final judgment of 18 December 2017 (communicated to the applicant on 22.05.2018) the Bucharest Court of Appeal examined the merits of the case and convicted the applicant of four acts of complicity to fraud and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. The applicant alleged that the pre-trial judge proceedings were unfair and breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention because they were not adversarial, took place in chambers, in his and his lawyer ’ s absence and without the applicant and his lawyer being summoned or the applicant being represented. In addition, he was deprived of the possibility to have the pre-trial judge ’ s decision challenged because he did not have the possibility to submit reasons supporting his challenge against the aforementioned decision as the reasons for the pre-trial judge ’ s decision were not available to him at the time when he drafted his challenge .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charge against him in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s right of defence affected in such a way as to render the criminal proceedings against him as a whole unfair in the sense of Article 6 of the Convention given that (i) the pre-trial judge proceedings allegedly had not been adversarial, had taken place in chambers, in the applicant ’ s and his lawyer ’ s absence and without the applicant and his lawyer being summoned or the applicant being represented, and (ii) the applicant had been deprived of the possibility to challenge the pre-trial judge ’ s decision because he had not had the possibility to submit reasons supporting his challenge against the said decision ?