Communicated on 24 October 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 23126/16 Iosif -Amadeus STÄ‚VILÄ‚ against Romania lodged on 18 April 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application originated in the Ineu prosecutor ’ s office ’ s decision to reopen the criminal proceedings against the applicant for driving a vehicle on a public road without a driver ’ s license nine months after the same prosecutor ’ s office had discontinued the proceedings and had fined the applicant. The applicant alleged that the reopening of the proceedings and his subsequent conviction by a final court judgment had breached his rights to defence and equality of arms guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention because ( i ) the lawfulness of the decision to reopen the proceedings was examined by a pre-trial judge in his absence and without him being summoned to participate in the proceedings; and (ii) the trial courts refused to examine his arguments concerning the unlawfulness of the decision to reopen the proceeding, even though the Constitutional Court had acknowledged the unfairness of the pre-trial judge procedure and had declared it unconstitutional before the applicant ’ s trial ended. Relying on the same Article of the Convention the applicant alleged that the decision to reopen the proceedings, nine months after the previous decision in the case and in the absence of any new facts or evidence, had breached the principle of legal certainty. The applicant further alleged that the prosecutor ’ s office ’ s decision to reopen the proceedings had breached his rights guaranteed by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. Lastly, the applicant alleged that the court proceedings, including the extraordinary appeal to review proceedings brought by him against his final conviction, did not provide him with an effective remedy for the alleged breaches of his Convention rights, in breach of Article 13.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the determination of the criminal charge against him? In particular, did the court proceedings respect the applicant ’ s rights to defence and to equality of arms in so far as: ( i ) the pre-trial judge had examined the lawfulness of the prosecutor ’ s office ’ s decision to reopen the criminal proceedings in his absence and without summoning him to participate in the proceedings; and (ii) the trial courts had refused to examine his arguments that the above-mentioned decision of the prosecutor ’ s office was unlawful even though the Constitutional Court had acknowledged the unfairness of the pre-trial judge procedure and declared it unconstitutional before his trial ended? Also, did the prosecutor ’ s office ’ s decision to reopen the proceedings, nine months after their previous decision in the case and in the absence of any new facts or evidence, breach the principle of legal certainty?

2. Has the applicant been tried or punished twice for the same offence within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention? If so, did the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him fall within the exceptions envisaged by the same article (see Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, 8 July 2019)?

3 Did the domestic court proceedings, including the extraordinary appeal to review proceedings initiated by the applicant, provide him with an effective remedy for his complaints, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?