Published on 3 April 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 63972/19 and 16056/20 Niculae RÄ‚DULESCU DOBROGEA against Romania and Bogdan CIUREA against Romania lodged on 29 November 2019 and 17 March 2020 respectively communicated on 14 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

Both applications concern administrative fines imposed on the applicants after they participated and chanted slogans on 10 March 2018 in a public protest against the main governmental party and its leaders. The protest was held nearby the Sala Palatului building in Bucharest where the leaders of the said party were hosting the party’s extraordinary congress. Both applicants were fined because the authorities considered that the protest the applicants participated in was a counterdemonstration organised in the same location and at the same time as another public assembly. The applicants described themselves as active participants in various demonstrations against actions taken by the Government or by political organisations and supporters of a non-governmental organisation promoting transparency and accountability in the manner public institutions work and interact with ordinary citizens.

By final judgments of 10 April 2019 (available on 10 June 2019) and 17 September 2019 the Bucharest County Court (“the County Court”) upheld in part or in full the fines imposed, respectively, on Mr Rădulescu Dobrogea and on Mr Ciurea. The court held that the evidence adduced by Mr Ciurea had not rebutted the findings of the report on which the fine imposed on him was based. Moreover, the fines imposed on the applicants had been lawful because they had participated in a counterdemonstration and the authorities had aimed to protect the right to a peaceful assembly of those participating to the extraordinary congress of the political party.

The applicant in application no. 16056/20, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, alleged that the court proceedings examining his challenge against the fine imposed on him had been unfair and had violated his right to be presumed innocent. In particular, the County Court, acting with bias and ignoring the evidence adduced by him, had reversed the burden of proof and imposed on him a duty to prove his innocence.

The applicants in both applications alleged, either expressly or in substance, that the County Court’s judgments upholding the fines imposed on them for protesting peacefully had violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly provided for by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They alleged that in its review of the measures taken against them, the County Court had given greater weight to the relevant domestic law than to the relevant case-law of the Court and had provided reasons which had not been relevant and sufficient given that they had ignored the specific circumstances of their cases.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant in application no. 16056/20 have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s case dealt with by an impartial tribunal which took into account the evidence adduced by him and respected his right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?

2. In respect of both applications, has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 and/or Article 11 § 2 of the Convention (see, Karademirci and Others v. Turkey , nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, 25 January 2005; Bukta and Others v. Hungary , no. 25691/04, 17 July 2007; Fáber v. Hungary , no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012; and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, 15 November 2018)?