Published on 11 April 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 19108/20 Vasile GAGIU against Romania lodged on 4 April 2020 communicated on 21 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns administrative proceedings regarding the withdrawal of the applicant’s licence to carry firearms.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of Convention, the applicant claims that the final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, delivered on 3 October 2019 and served on the applicant on 9 April 2020, by which his complaint against the administrative decision of 13 April 2017 to withdraw his licence to carry firearms was dismissed, was based on classified information, namely a note issued by the national police on 29 September 2016, to which he and the lawyer of his own choice, did not have access. He also complains of an alleged violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms as by having been denied access to the note issued by the national police on public interest grounds, which in his opinion was decisive evidence in dismissing his complaint (compare Ilinca v. Romania (dec.), no. 50882/15, § 14, 1 October 2019), he was not able to make arguments and adduce evidence against it.

The applicant’s name was not included in a database, containing information on persons deemed to be a potential danger to society, with damaging consequences for his reputation, his private life and his job prospects (contrast Pocius v. Lithuania , no. 35601/04, §§ 38-46, 6 July 2010, and Užukauskas v. Lithuania , no. 16965/04, §§ 34-39, 6 July 2010).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the administrative proceedings in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 110, 19 September 2017)?

2. If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms respected as regards his lack of access to classified information in the file? Has a fair balance been struck between the applicant’s right to a fair trial and the State’s interest in not disclosing certain confidential information (see Regner , cited above, §§ 146-149)?