Search
document

FIERĂSCU v. ROMANIA and 9 other applications

Doc ref: 19444/14;65145/14;78458/14;22369/15;37218/15;72088/16;9923/17;9929/17;41807/17;206/18 • ECHR ID: 001-193290

Document date: April 23, 2019

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

FIERĂSCU v. ROMANIA and 9 other applications

Doc ref: 19444/14;65145/14;78458/14;22369/15;37218/15;72088/16;9923/17;9929/17;41807/17;206/18 • ECHR ID: 001-193290

Document date: April 23, 2019

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 23 April 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 19444/14 Alexandru FIERÄ‚SCU against Romania and 9 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

All the applications concern the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants.

All the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were unfairly convicted following entrapment by State agents and that their plea of entrapment was not properly examined in the domestic proceedings.

In addition, in applications no. 78458/14 and no. 22369/2015 the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the fairness of the criminal proceedings on account of the fact that, after having been acquitted by the lower courts, they had been convicted by the court of last instance without a direct examination of the accused and/or of the witnesses heard by the lower courts.

COMMON QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. In particular, were the applicants victims of entrapment by agent provocateur and did they have appropriate procedural safeguards in that respect?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Applications no. 78458/14 and no. 22369/15

3. Was the applicants ’ conviction by the court of last instance, after acquittal by the lower courts, compatible with the requirements of fairness of proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, considering that their conviction was based on the reconsideration of the facts established by the first instance court without direct examination of the evidence by the court of last instance?

No .

Application no .

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s

date of birth

Represented by

Final domestic decision

19444/14*

27/02/2014

Alexandru FIERÄ‚SCU

31/10/1981

București

Mircea FIERÄ‚SCU

6 September 2013 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice

65145/14*

26/09/2014

Mircea - Ioan BONA

14/10/1960

Lugoj

Arcadie ANASTASESCU

27 March 2014 of the Timisoara Court of Appeal

78458/14

12/12/2014

Iucsel SELAMET

04/05/1963

M edgidia

Ion POPESCU

12 June 2014 of the Constanta Court of Appeal

22369/15

27/04/2015

Dumitru GODÃŽNCA

03/05/1957

Valea Vișeului

Călin Gheorghe DRAGOMIR

28 October 2014 of the Oradea Court of Appeal

37218/15

21/07/2015

Gheorghe-Daniel BULAT

10/08/1986

Craiova

Andra POPA FLOREA

11 February 2015 of the Craiova Court of Appeal

72088/16*

26/11/2016

Tatiana- Nicoleta BAUMANN

29/01/1970

Ploiești

Catalin -Mihai BAUMANN

25 May 2016 of the Brasov Court of Appeal (available to the applicant on 21 June 2016)

9923/17

13/01/2017

Ciprian CĂRĂUȘU

06/10/1981

Onești

George Bogdan POCOVNICU

13 July 2016 of the Bacau Court of Appeal

9929/17

13/01/2017

Bogdan MIRCEA

20/08/1981

Onești

George Bogdan POCOVNICU

13 July 2016 of the Bacau Court of Appeal

41807/17

31/05/2017

Petre SANDA

18/09/1967

Urluiasca

13 December 2016 of the Craiova Court of Appeal

206/18

22/12/2017

Marian PREDA

23/01/1973

Buturugeni

Dorel Bogdan VLAD

30 June 2017 o f the Bucharest Court of Appeal

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant