Published on 19 February 2024

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 23884/19 Marius COVACIU against Romania lodged on 9 April 2019 communicated on 30 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant.

The applicant was accused of committing two different criminal offences: (a) six episodes of tax evasion (evaziune fiscală) between February and August 2006 and (b) use of forged documents (uz de fals) in the same period of time. By a judgment of 29 November 2017 the Brașov Regional Court acquitted the applicant of the first offense after finding the evidence adduced by the prosecutor insufficient to warrant a conviction. It also discontinued the proceedings in respect of the second offence imputed to the applicant on grounds of Statute of Limitations.

On 10 October 2018 the Brașov Court of Appeal reversed the above judgment and convicted the applicant to a suspended sentence of two and a half years. In so doing, the Court of Appeal reclassified the charges against the applicant into a single continuous offence of tax fraud, while considering the use of forged documents as elements of the offence of tax fraud. In respect of the issue of the Statute of Limitations, the court considered that the last acts of tax evasion had taken place in November 2006, while the last acts of use of forged documents – in April 2010.

The applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair because the Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal solution of the first instance court without directly administering all the evidence but merely by re-assessing their value. He also alleges that the Court of Appeal reclassified the charges against him without informing him and, thus, without providing him with adequate time and facilities to react to the reclassified charge and to properly organise his defence as required by Article 386 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He finally alleges that the court went beyond the initial accusation when finding him responsible of acts which were not in the indictment, namely of acts of tax fraud committed in November 2006 and use of forged documents committed in April 2010. According to the applicant, he was never presented with an opportunity to defend himself against allegations concerning a period of time beyond August 2006, i.e. beyond the period of time indicated in the indictment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. 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 ( Mischie v. Romania , no. 50224/07, 16 September 2014)?

2. Was the applicant informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention and was he afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? ( Varela Geis v. Spain , no. 61005/09, 5 March 2013; and Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II)?