THIRD SECTION

Application no. 42941/05 Frantisek PŘÍPLATA against Romania lodged on 16 November 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Františ ek Příplata , is a Czech national who was b orn in 1948 and lives in Uherské Hradi ště . He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Strupek , a lawyer practising in Prague.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The background of the criminal proceedings

In 1998, the applicant was empower ed by a Czech company (“company ZV”) to represent it in the process of the pr ivatization of the company S.C. Tepro S.A. (“ Tepro ”) having its headquarters in Ia ş i . The company ZV won the bid organised by the Fund of State Property (“ Fondul Proprietatea ”) and the contract for the transfe r of shares was concluded on 21 July 1998. The applicant gained no economic interest in Tepro .

The transfer of the company ’ s control to company ZV was strongly opposed by the workers ’ trade union called Sindicatul Liber Te pro (“SLT”) lead by Mr S (“the SLT leader”) who challenged the validity of the privatisation contract at the court and organised strikes.

In June 2000, the applicant recommended to the Czech manager of company ZV the services of a company (“company P”) for guarding and security services, headed by Mr C (“the manager of company P”).

The terms of the contract between the two compan ies were discussed on 10 August 2000 at a hotel. The applicant was present at the cocktail after the press conference; however, he denied that he had taken any part in the conversation between Mr Z (“the manager of ZV”), the manager of company P and M r B (“the manager of Tepro ”) during which it was allegedly decided to eliminate the SLT leader.

The contract on provision of security services was signed by company P and Tepro on 16 August 2000.

2. The attack against the leader of SLT

On 19 August 2000 the attempt of the manager of company P and his employees to take over the security posts in Tepro was physically prevented by SLT. According to the applicant, on that day the manager of company P indicated to his employees that the SLT leader should be assaulted in order to prevent him from organising the workers of SLT against the taking over of the security posts at Tepro .

On 20 August 2000 the personnel of company P succeeded to take over the security posts in Tepro . However, on the next day they were forced out.

According to the prosecuting authorities, the manager of company P gave to B, S and V the address of the SLT leader so that he could be attacked.

B invited his friend T to take part in the assault. On 5 September 2000, he allegedly informed his boss that he and T agreed to use a knife during the assault. The manager of company P allegedly consented to the use of the knife stating that the reward promised to t hem would be doubled if the SLT leader was killed.

On 7 September 2000, at about 8 a.m., B and T attacked the SLT leader in the corridor of his house and caused him fatal injuries. He died shortly after being transported to the hospital.

3. The investigation

The actors of the assault and the manager of company P were arrested on 9 September 2000. They did not mention any involvement of the applicant in the assault in their f irst statements. However, on 11 September 2000 the manager started to mention about the applicant ’ s involvement in the attack.

The manager o f Tepro wa s also arrested on 10 September 2000 but he started to mention about the applicant ’ s involvement in the discussions whic h took place at the hotel on 10 August 2000 only on 18 September 2000.

Mr P, a friend of the manager of company P, who allegedly was present to compromising conversations between the applicant and his friend, was heard as a witness on 20, 21, 22 and 28 September. He did not mention anything about the applicant ’ s involvement in the affair. However, when he was heard on 10 October 2000 he changed his position alleging that he was present to the conversation between the manager of company P and the applicant during which the latter had allegedly told to the former that the problems could be solved by the physical elimination of the SLT leader.

According to the applicant, before the criminal proceedings were initiated against him he had never met any of the persons who killed the SLT leader.

Most of the statements given at the investigation stage concerning the applicant ’ s involvement were retracted later before the courts on the ground that they were taken under illegal pressure.

On 13 September 2000 the prosecutor started the investigation also against the applicant and instructed the police not to allow him to leave the country.

In the evening of 19 September 2000 the applicant was stopped to c ross the Romanian border in BorÅŸ . He was transported to IaÅŸ i by police officers without an official order of arrest. His interrogation started immediately after their arrival at 1.30 a.m. on 21 September 2000. The interrogation lasted until 2.30 p.m. He pleaded not guilty and denied any involv ement in the killing of the SLT leader.

On 21 September 2000 the prosecutor in charge organised a confrontation between the appli cant and the manager of company P. The applicant ’ s lawyers were not allowed to ask questions to the latter.

On the same day the applicant was officially arrested and placed in detention on remand.

On 26 October 2000 the interpreter who ensured the translation of the conversation which took place in the hotel in August gave a statement before the prosecutor. He maintained that the applicant was not present during the conversation and that the managers of companies P, ZV and Tepro had only discussed the terms of the contract to be signed.

On 2 November 2000 the applicant was heard in connection with another charge against him concerning the offence of fraud against the public patrimony.

On 25 November 2000 the prosecutor filed and indicted with the Ia ÅŸi County Court the applicant for having committed the offences of fraud against the public patrimony, association with the purpose to commit an offence and incitement to qualified homicide. Together with him were indicted the attackers of the SLT leader and the managers of the companies P and Tepro .

The bill of indictment was delivered to the applicant only in Romanian language. He managed to obtain a translation paid by him only after the first ‑ instance court delivered its judgment.

4. The trial

At the hearing held on 5 January 2000 before the Iaş i County Court, the manager of Tepro alleged that the prosecutor in charge had forced him to write his statement given during the investigation stage on the basis of a text already prepared. Therefore he had made false statements. On 9 January 2000, the newspaper “ Monitorul ” published a letter delivered by him in this respect. According to him, the confrontation with the applicant was a theatre prepared and elaborated by the prosecutor. He added that he agreed to behave in the dictated manner after having been promised to be released from detention and because the prosecutor threatened him that “his bones would rot in jail if he did not declare what had been dictated to him”.

By a decision of 23 January 2001, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the applications of the applicant, the Embassy of the Czech Republic and of the Ministry of Justice for the r eferral of the case from the IaÅŸ i County Court to another court due to the immense political pressure that took place in Ia ÅŸ i . The file was transferred to the Satu Mare County Court.

On 5 February 2001 the Satu Mare County Court appointed an interpreter of Czech language who according to the applicant was not authorised for this activity. Therefore, he requested the appointment of the same authorised interpreter used by the prosecutor during the investigation stage and the hearings before the IaÅŸ i County Court. His request was dismissed on the ground that the expenses would be too high since he resided in Ia ÅŸ i .

On 3 April 2001, two other defendants (T and S) complained about the oppression used against them by the investigating authorities in order to make false statements.

On the same day the court appointed a new interpreter due to the fact that the applicant did not understand the interpretation carried out by the previous one.

R had shared his cell in Bucharest pris on with the applicant and th ree other co-defendants. According to his written statements he was approached on 21 April 2001 by a prison official and four other persons and requested to sign a statement that he had he ard the applicant admitting his involvement in the murder and that the privatisation of Tepro had been fraudulent. For his services he was promised better prospect of success of his application for parole.

At the hearing of 5 June 2001, B denied his previous statement incriminating the applicant. He maintained that it was dictated to him by the prosecutor.

On 19 July 2001, the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant and the manager of Tepro against the interlocutory judgment on the extension of their pre-tri al detention. It replaced their detention with the obligation not to leave their residence and ordered their release. It also stated that the facts as described in the bill of indictment were not completely confirmed by the statements of the defendants and the witnesses heard before the court. The judgment had a dissenting opinion according to which the extension of the detention was justified since the grounds for taking the preventive measure had not changed.

After the applicant had been released from detention, workers of Tepro were gathering in the streets of Ia ş i protesting against the release. On 21 July 2001, the Prime Minister at that time, attended one of these meetings and expressed his support to the workers. He called the killing of the SLT leader a “political murder” and promised to as k the General Prosecutor to explain to the people of Ia ş i why the persons c onsidered by the citizens of Iaş i to be guilty of the murder were prosecuted without being detained.

After two days, the decision to release the applicant from arrest was challenged by the General Prosecutor who filed a complaint for breach of law with the Supreme Court of Justice. He also ordered the arrest of the applicant. On 24 July 2001 the Satu Mare County Court extended the detention of the applicant and the manager of Tepro until 2 September 2001 taking into account the request of the Supreme Court of Justice for the suspension of the decision ordering their release.

On 26 September 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal lodged by the General Prosecutor and co nsequently the Satu Mare County Court replaced their detention with th e obligation not to leave their residence.

According to the applicant, the state authorities reacted in an inappropriate way to the decision of the Oradea Court of Appeal to release him and B from detention. Thus, the Ministry of Justice carried out an inspection at the court. The two judges of the panel who voted in favour of the applicant ’ s release were de facto sanctioned for the said decision. One judge was recalled from the position of the president of the criminal section of the court and was moved to the civil section and the other judge was moved to the commercial section. The third judge who voted against and drafted a dissenting opinion to the decision remained in the criminal section.

On 27 July 2001, the Ministry of Justice lo dged a request with the Supreme Court of Justice asking for another referral of the case to another court different from the Satu Mare County Court. The request was justified by the wide media coverage of the case and its effect on the public opinion. The Ministry stated that the request for the referral of the file to another court was made at the insistence of the Czech Embassy. The Czech Embassy attended the hearing before the Supreme Court and contested such a measure. The request of the Ministry of Justice was dismissed.

At the hearings of 2 July 2002 and 3 September 2002 before the Satu Mare County Court, as the interpretation in Czech language was not secured, a witness was used as interpreter.

By a judgment of 5 November 2011, the applicant was acquitted for the offence of fraud against the public patrimony and found guilty of association with the purpose of committing a crime and of incitement to battery with fatal results ( instigare la infrac ţ iunea de lovituri cauzatoare de moarte ). He was sentenced to six years imprisonment. The court held that the applicant and the managers of the companies P and Tepro had instructed the attackers only to cause to the SLT leader injuries that would prevent him from his activities in Tepro for a few weeks. It also held that the attackers had exceeded the instructions. However, apart from this very general and brief summary the court did not indicate on what specific evidence it relied in order to reach its conclusions. The judgment was delivered to the applicant in Romanian.

5. The appeal proceedings

The applicant, the other defendants and the prosecutor ’ s office each lodged an appeal with the Oradea Court of Appeal.

At the hearing of 21 August 2003, the court informed the applicant that the next hearing scheduled on 10 September 2003 would take place in the absence of an interpreter if he did not secure one himself. Until that hearing the interpretation was not secured at all. In reaction to such an instruction the Embassy of the Czech Repu blic sent a note to the Supreme Court of Justice which subsequently informed the appeal court that the interpretation must be secured by the judicial authorities.

At the hearing of 24 September 2003 the applicant asked the court to allow him to hear more witnesses on his behalf submitting a list of eight names in this respect. His request was denied on the ground that the hearing of new witnesses was not necessary, without providing other reasons. At the end of the hearing his lawyer submitted a final written statement in which he stressed that the applicant had no economic interest in Tepro and therefore no reason to want the elimination of the SLT leader. He also complained about the fact that the interpretation before the Satu Mare County Court was ensured by two unauthorised interpreters.

By a decision of 8 October 2003 the Oradea Court of Appeal partially quashed the judgment of the Satu Mare County Court. It found the applicant guilty of fraud against the public patrimony, association with the purpose of committing a crime and incitement to a qualified murder. He was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment and deprivation of his civil rights for a period of five years. He was also ordered to pay a monthly allowance to the daughter of the victim until the age of 25, provided that she continued her studies after reaching full age. He was also ordered to pay the expenses in connection with the interpretation.

The appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed. As the judgment of the first ‑ instance court, the decision of the appellate court did not provide explanations or consideration regarding the changes of the depositions by certain witnesses and defendants before the court, as well as the contradictions between their declarations.

6 . The appeal on points of law

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision invoking that Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention had been violated. In this respect he claimed that most of the written procedural acts were delivered to him in Romanian language and that interpretat ion before the Satu Mare County Court was ensured by non-authorised interpreters who were not well understood by him.

He also complained that his right to defence was infringed on account of the fact that his request for further evidence made before the appellate court was dismissed without sufficient reasons. He stressed that the testimonies of the persons present at the conversation held at the hotel were essential for understanding his implication in the murder.

Another complaint regarded the lack of impartiality of the domestic courts due to strong political pressure.

By a decision delivered on 2 June 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice partially quashed the decision of the Oradea Court of Appeal. It acquitted the applicant of the charge of fraud against the public patrimony, maintaining the other two charges and sentenced him to eight years of imprisonment and five years deprivation of his civil rights. It also cancelled the applicant ’ s obligation to pay for the expenses related to interpretation.

For medical reasons the applicant w as allowed to start serving his sentence on 7 September 2005. However, taking advantage of the lack of vigilance of the borders authorities he escaped from Romania to the Cze ch Republic in July 2005. The Czech authorities refused his extradition in Romania.

COMPLAINTS

1. The ap plicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of impartiality and independence of the domestic courts. In this respect he complains abou t the intervention of the Prime Minister after his release from detention and later of the Ministry of Justice which applied for relinquishment of the jurisdiction from the Oradea Court of Appeal to another court. He also complains about the extraordinary appeal lodged by the General Prosecutor against the decision to release him from detention. He believes that the decisions of the domestic courts were the result of the strong political pressure exercised.

2. Under the Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention, the applicant complains about the alleged lack of motivation of the decisions rendered by the domestic courts.

3. Relying on Arti cle 6 § 3 (d) he claims that the Oradea Court of Appeal rejected his proposal for further evidence without any reasons. He maintains that the courts relied on depositions made prior to his accusation which were later retracted before the courts.

4. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 3 (e) about the infringement of his right to free assistance of an interpreter on the ground that the interprets w ho assisted him before the Satu Mare County Court were not court-certified and offered him an inadequate interpretation which created to him difficulties in understanding the proceedings. He also alleges that he did not receive any documents translated into Czech language. In this respect he stresses that having regard to the gravity of the charge and the heavy sentence faced and with regard to the extent of the factual and legal issues concerned he should have received at least the indictment and the decisions of the domestic courts translated into the Czech language in a written form.

5. He claims under Article 6 § 2 of t he Convention that the Romanian courts and the investigating authorities fulfilled their functions with the preconceived idea that he had committed the offences. He also complains about the declarations made by the Prime Minister abou t his alleged guilt.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge agai nst him, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention taking into account in particular the alleged refusal of the Oradea Court of Appeal to hear the witnesses proposed on behalf of the applicant without providing reasons, the pressure exercised on the domestic courts by the executive which could have affected their impartiality and the alleged difficulties encountered in understanding the proceedings?

2. Having regard to the statements of the Prime Minister published in newspapers, was the applicant ’ s right to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention respected in the present case?