THIRD SECTION

Application no. 39435/08 Vladimir MUNTEANU against Romania lodged on 17 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Vladimir Munteanu , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Cahul . He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Vitalie , a lawyer practising in Chisinau .

A. The circumstances of the case

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3 . On 30 August 2006 the applicant was charged together with two Romanian citizens of fraud, creating and belonging to an organised crime group, using forged documents before the customs authorities and money laundering. The prosecutor ’ s decision held that the applicant together with several Romanian citizens imported car tires into Romania and falsified customs documents in order to avoid customs taxes.

4 . On 3 September 2006 the applicant ’ s detention on remand was ordered for 30 days by the Bucharest County Court.

The investigative prosecutor ’ s request for the prolongation of the applicant ’ s detention on remand was rejected by the Bucharest County Court on 27 September 2006 with the reasoning that there was no reasonable suspicion that the applicant was guilty of the crimes he was charged with.

5 . On 2 October 2006 the Prosecutors ’ Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice issued a decision forbidding the applicant to leave Romania for a period of 30 days for the purpose of continuing the investigation for the above-mentioned crimes. This preventive measure was prolonged monthly by order of the investigative prosecutor.

6 . On 28 September 2007 the applicant sought the annulment of the measure before the Bucharest County Court. He argued that no new investigative steps had been taken by the prosecutors in the meantime and the measure against him had been extended automatically, without taking into consideration his specific situation namely that he was not a Romanian citizen and that his wife and two minor children resided in Moldova and needed a visa to travel to Romania. The applicant also argued that extending the measure for more than one year would be contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7 . On 15 January 2008 the Bucharest County Court ruled on the applicant ’ s complaint and revoked the preventive measure taken against him. The court analysed the latest decision taken by the prosecutor on 23 November 2007 and held that extending the ban to leave the country for more than one year was contrary to the provisions of Article 145 combined with Article 145 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that the prosecutor ’ s decision was a copy of the previous decision in this respect and did not bring any new reasons to prolong the measure against the applicant. In addition, the court held that the prosecutor did not prove that there was any reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a crime. The judgment became final on 21 January 2008 when the prosecutor ’ s appeal was rejected.

8 . On that date the applicant was free to leave Romania and he returned to his home country, Moldova. He was never informed of the status of the investigation pending in Romania.

9 . In the meantime, on 26 January 2007, at the request of the applicant ’ s wife, a court in Moldova had withdrawn the applicant ’ s parental rights over his son.

10 . Moreover, according to the applicant, at an unspecified date during the period he was prohibited to leave Romania, he had unsuccessfully requested permission to visit his father who was suffering of cancer and underwent an operation in Moldova.

B. Relevant domestic law

11 . Article 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides the following:

“(1) In cases concerning offences punishable with imprisonment, in order to ensure the good conduct of the criminal trial or to prevent the suspect or the defendant from fleeing during the criminal investigation, trial or during the execution of the sentence, one of the following preventive measures may be imposed on the person: (...)

(c) prohibition on leaving the country; ( ... )

(8) The measure to be taken shall be chosen taking account of its purpose, the severity of the crime, the health, age, [and any] previous convictions or other circumstances [of] the person against whom the measure is to be imposed.”

12 . Article 145 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the requirements in Article 145 which refer to the measure not to leave town also apply to the measure not to leave the country.

13 . Article 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows in its relevant part:

“ (2) 1 ( ... ) The measure not to leave town may be prolonged in the course of the criminal investigation if necessary and only by a reasoned decision. The extension is ordered by the prosecutor who is conducting or supervising the investigation, each extension cannot exceed 30 days. The maximum duration of the measure provided for in paragraph (1) in the course of the criminal investigation is one year. ”

C OMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that the ban imposed on him not to leave Romania was extended automatically and beyond the legal time-limit and breached his right to freedom of movement while preventing him from returning to his home country and from seeing his wife, his children and his sick father . He also alleges that because he could not return to Moldova for such a long period of time, he lost his parental rights over his son whom he has not seen since.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a restriction on the applicant ’ s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention ? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4?