Communicated on 16 October 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 38072/11 S . C . CREDIT EUROPE LEASING IFN S . A . against Romania lodged on 17 June 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the seizure (for the purpose of subsequent confiscation) of the applicant company ’ s property in the course of a criminal investigation against other companies. 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 6 August 2010, concerned 779 press kiosks and 7 lorries lawfully owned by the applicant company and leased to the companies under investigation. 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. This provision had been clarified in an appeal in the interests of law by the High Court of Cassation and Justice which held in its decision no. 71/2007 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 Bucharest County Court on 17 February 2011.

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

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the judgment of 17 February 2011 of the Bucharest County Court, rejecting as inadmissible the applicant ’ s complaint against the seizure order of 6 August 2010, in breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to court as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the seizure of the applicant ’ s property, imposed on 6 August 2010 and still pending, constitute a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention?

If so, was the seizure of the applicant ’ s property, compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention?

3. Has the applicant been deprived of its possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference strike the 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 its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint against the seizure order of 6 August 2010, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?