THIRD SECTION

Application no . 80543/12 Dumitru CODREAN against Romania lodged on 10 December 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dumitru Codrean , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Oradea. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. A. Koloszi , a lawyer practising in Oradea.

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

By a bill of indictment of 2 December 2003 the applicant was charged with repeated influence peddling.

On 23 February 2011 the first-instance court, the Oradea Court of Appeal, acquitted the applicant on the grounds that one constituent element of the influence peddling offence was missing.

The Prosecutor ’ s Office attached to the Oradea Court of Appeal lodged an appeal on points of law with the High Court of Cassation and Justice, seeking the conviction of the applicant.

At the last hearing before the High Court of Cassation and Justice held on 28 May 2012, the applicant and the lawyer of his choice were absent. The appeal court noted that the order to appear at the hearings issued on the applicant ’ s name could not be executed because the applicant was hospitalised in Oradea Hospital. It was also noted that the applicant had asked the adjournment of the hearings for medical reasons. In this respect he had submitted a medical certificate issued by Oradea Hospital. Despite the applicant ’ s request, noting that the applicant was aware of the hearings, the court proceeded to the hearing of the parties ’ final submissions. The applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed ex officio by the court.

On 28 June 2012 the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor, set aside the judgment of the first-instance court with respect to the acquittal of the applicant, and retained the file for fresh consideration. It found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years ’ imprisonment.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice considered that the findings of fact by the first-instance court were suitable for appellate review without taking further evidence. Giving a new interpretation to the facts it found the applicant guilty.

The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal. He claimed that he could not attend the appeal proceedings before the High Court of Cassation and Justice because of his serious medical condition. On 28 November 2012 the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the High Court of Cassation and Justice had not secured a fair trial, as it had re ‑ examined the case and worsened his situation in his absence and without hearing any evidence.

QUESTION S to the parties

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the overturning by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of the applicant ’ s acquittal without a direct assessment of the evidence and in the absence of the applicant and the lawyer of his choice, impair the overall fairness of the proceedings?