Communicated on 24 October 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 3861/16 Ionela STÄ‚NESCU against Romania lodged on 11 January 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the seizure (for the purpose of subsequent confiscation) of the applicant ’ s property in the course of a criminal investigation against another person. It also concerns the impossibility for the applicant – arising from the practice of the domestic courts – of contesting the seizure separately during the investigation. The seizure in question, ordered by the prosecutor on 30 May 2012, concerned three cars owned by the applicant. The measure is still valid as the investigation is currently ongoing.

According to article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the relevant time, the seizure could be contested before the prosecutor or the courts. In its decision no. 71/2007, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that the seizure could be contested only before the prosecutor while the investigation was ongoing and before the courts once the investigation was concluded and the case was sent to trial. In application of this decision, the applicant ’ s complaint against the seizure order had been rejected as inadmissible by the Ia ş i County Court on 13 July 2015.

The applicant complains that her right of access to court had been breached and that, in the absence of an effective domestic remedy, the excessively lengthy seizure of her property constitutes a breach of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the judgment of 13 July 2015 of the Ia ş i County Court, rejecting as inadmissible the applicant ’ s complaint against the seizure order of 30 May 2012, in breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to court as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

3. If so, was that interference lawful and did it strike a fair balance between the protection of the applicant ’ s right to property and the requirements of the general interest?

4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint against the seizure order of 30 May 2012, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?