THIRD SECTION

Application no. 37352/12 Dan NUNA

against Romania lodged on 22 May 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dan Nuna , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Zalău . He is repres ented before the Court by Mr R. Chiriţă , a lawyer practising in Cluj Napoca .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 6 April 2007 the Sălaj Prosecutor ’ s Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant, indicted him for negligence and sent his case for trial.

By a judgment of 25 January 2012 the Zalău District Court acquitted the applicant on the basis of documents, testimonial and expert evidence. The Sălaj Prosecutor ’ s Office appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment.

By a final judgment of 10 April 2012 the Cluj Court of Appeal, in the presence of the applicant, allowed the Sălaj Prosecutor ’ s Office appeal on points of law on the basis of the available evidence, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to two years ’ imprisonment, suspended. The last instance court did not hear the applicant and did not administer evidence.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provision of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the last instance court ’ s duty to hear evidence from a person on trial when he had not been convicted by the lower courts is set out in Spînu v. Romania , no. 32030/02, § 39, 29 April 2008.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he did not have a fair trial before the Cluj Court of Appeal in so far as the said court convicted him without hearing him and without administering evidence after he was acquitted by the lower court. In addition, the last instance court wrongfully assessed the evidence, misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions and failed to provide reasons for its judgment.

QUESTION 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 so far as the last instance court failed to hear him and to administer evidence prior to his conviction?