Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

DANIELA NASTASE v. ROMANIA and 1 other application

Doc ref: 46/15;744/15 • ECHR ID: 001-188758

Document date: November 27, 2018

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

DANIELA NASTASE v. ROMANIA and 1 other application

Doc ref: 46/15;744/15 • ECHR ID: 001-188758

Document date: November 27, 2018

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 27 November 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 46 /15 and 744 /15 Daniela NĂSTASE against Romania and Adrian N Ă STASE against Romania both lodged on 22 December 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern the criminal proceedings finalised with the applicants ’ (a former prime minister of Romania and his wife) conviction for blackmail and corruption offences by the judgment of 6 January 2014 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the fact that the recusals lodged by the applicants against judges I.B. and I.M.M. as well as the requests for abstention filed by the same judges were rejected, and having regard to the manner of appointment of the president of the panel which heard the applicants ’ appeal on point of law, was this panel an “impartial tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant in application no. 744/15 incited by an undercover agent to commit the offence of blackmail? If so, was he afforded adequate procedural safeguards with respect to his plea of incitement raised before the national courts?

3. 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? In particular, did the overturning by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of the applicants ’ acquittal without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicants and the witnesses on whose statements they relied, impair the overall fairness of the proceedings?

4. Having regard that the judgment of 6 January 2014 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice was drafted six months after its public delivery, w as the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

Application

no.

First name LAST NAME

Birth year

Nationality

Place of residence

Representative

46/15

Daniela NĂSTASE

1955Romanian

Bucharest

Corneliu Liviu Popescu

744/15

Adrian NĂSTASE

1950Romanian

Bucharest

Corneliu Liviu Popescu

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846