THIRD SECTION

Application no. 20763/08 Nicolae AMARIEI against Romania lodged on 16 April 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Nicolae Amariei , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Ia ÅŸ i .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 11 November 2005 the division responsible for fighting organised crime and terrorism from the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the prosecutor”) started criminal prosecution against the applicant and other persons on suspicion of forgery and fraud as well as of creating an organised criminal group.

On 13 November 2005, at 8 am, the police arrived at the applicant ’ s home, informed him of the accusations brought against him and told him that he was to be taken to the police headquarters to be interviewed by a prosecutor. They then proceeded to search his house.

On the same day, the applicant was taken to the police headquarters and was interrogated by the prosecutor. In the evening, the prosecutor informed him that he was not allowed to leave the country to prevent him from absconding o r tampering with evidence .

On 28 August 2006 the prosecutor indicted the applicant and thirty three other persons. On 29 August 2006 the case was filed before the Bucharest County Court.

The applicant requested that the interdiction of leaving the country be lifted.

Between August 2006 and February 2007, the court postponed eight times the examination of the case for procedural faults.

Finally, on 2 March 2007 the court heard the preliminary pleas from the parties. On 12 March 2007 it decided, based on the arguments presented by the parties, to send the case back to the prosecutor to allow the procedural errors to be rectified. The court also examined the preventive measures taken against the accused. It considered that the reasons having justified the interdiction still existed but did not specify them. The court maintained the measures and consequently dismissed the applicant ’ s request to lift the interdiction .

The prosecutor appealed, and in a final decision of 17 October 2007 the Bucharest Court of Appeal quashed the County Court ’ s decision, sent the case back to that court and ordered it to pursue the examination of the merits of the case. The court of appeal also dismissed the applicant ’ s request to lift the interdiction imposed on him by the prosecutor.

Before the County Court, the applicant requested repeatedly that the preventive measure taken against him be lifted. His requests were all dismissed by the court (interlocutory judgments of 15 September 2008, 24 November 2010, 10 March 2010, 25 January 2011 and its judgment of 21 March 2013), on the ground that the reasons that had justified the taking of the initial measure were still applicable. The court did not specify what those concrete reasons were. The Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed as inadmissible the appeal lodged by the applicant against the interlocutory judgment of 10 March 2010. It considered that the law did not provide the possibility to appeal against an interlocutory judgment by means of which the court dismissed the request to lift a preventive measure.

The County Court rendered its judgment on 21 March 2013. It convicted the applicant of forgery and fraud as well as of having constituted an organised criminal group. It sentenced the applicant to eight years in prison and maintained the obligation not to leave the country.

The applicant appealed. The proceedings are currently pending with the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.

He further complains, under Article 2 §§ 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, about the prohibition of leaving the country imposed on him as a preventive measure. He considers that there were no serious grounds for taking this measure as he did not try to abscond, to tamper with evidence or to reoffend. He also complains about the overall length of the interdiction.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?