Total Row: 14 / View:
Page:
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, ECtHR, Application no. 60858/15, Case of Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania,

4 February 2020

Deciding court: Bucharest County Court Bucharest Court of Appeal The High Court of Cassation and Justice
Topic: Impartiality
National Follow Up Of (when relevant):
ECtHR jurisprudence: Altay v. Turkey, no. 22279/93, 22 May 2001 Craxi III v. Italy (dec.), no. 63226/00, 14 June 2001 De Cubber v. Belgium, no. 9186/80, 26 October 1984 (Merits) Diennet v. France, no. 18160/91, 26 September 1995 Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, 15 January 2015 Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, no. 19874/92, 7 August 1996 Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012 Hauschildt v. Denmark, no. 10486/83, 24 May 1989 Marguš v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, 27 May 2014 Mureşan v. Romania, no. 2962/13, 8 November 2016 Otegi Mondragon and Others v. Spain, nos. 4184/15, 4317/15, 4323/15, 5028/15 and 5053/15, 6 November 2018 Ringeisen v. Austria, no. 2614/65, 16 July 1971 Romero Martin v. Spain (dec.), no. 32045/03, 12 June 2006 Rudnichenko v. Ukraine, no. 2775/07, 11 July 2013 Thomann v. Switzerland, no. 17602/91, 10 June 1996 Tirean v. Romania, no. 47603/10, 28 October 2014 Vaillant v. France, no. 30609/04, 18 December 2008
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, ECtHR, Application no. 40238/02, Case of Bucur și Toma v. Romania, 8 January 2013

Deciding court: The Military Court The Military Court of Appeal High Court of Justice (High Court of Cassation and Justice)
Topic: Rule of law-prohibition of arbitrariness The guarantees against arbitrary surveillance were absent.
National Follow Up Of (when relevant):
ECtHR jurisprudence: Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no 27798/95, 16 February 2000 Artico v. Italy, no. 6694/74, 13 May 1980 Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 29, Series A no 149 Begu v. Romania, no 20448/02, 15 March 2011 Boldea v. Romania, no 19997/02, 15 February 2007 Buscemi v. Italy, no 29569/95, 16 September 1999 Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77, 28 June 1984 Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 48843/99, 16 December 2003 Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no 2), no 71525/01, 26 April 2007 Eckle v. Germany, no 8130/78, 15 July 1982 (Merits) Ergin v. Turkey (no 6), no 47533/99, 4 May 2006 Frydlender v. France [GC], no 30979/96, 27 June 2000 Gadi v. France (dec.), no 45533/05, 13 January 2009 Guja v. Moldova [GC], no 14277/04, 12 February 2008 Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, no 12945/87, 16 December 1992 Heinisch v. Germany, no 28274/08, 21 July 2011 Incal v. Turkey [GC], no 22678/93, 9 June 1998 Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, 25 January 2005 Klass and Others v. Germany, no 5029/71, 6 September 1978 Lavents v. Latvia, no 58442/00, 28 November 2002 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, nos. 6878/75 and 7238/75, 23 June 1981 (Merits) Marchenko v. Ukraine, no 4063/04, 19 February 2009 Maszni v. Romania, no 59892/00, 21 September 2006 Morris v. the United Kingdom, no 38784/97, 26 February 2002 Nolan and K. v. Russia, no 2512/04, 12 February 2009 Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no 4704/04, 15 February 2011 Perez v. France [GC], no 47287/99, 12 February 2004 Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no 25390/94, 20 May 1999 Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no 28341/95, 4 May 2000 Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no 68416/01, 15 February 2005 Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no 69698/01, 10 December 2007 Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no 23763/94, 8 July 1999 Timurtas v. Turkey, no 23531/94, 13 June 2000 Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, no 16034/90, 19 April 1994 Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, nos. 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93 and 22056/93, 23 April 1997 (Merits) Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland, no 20436/02, 16 July 2009 Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no 29870/96, 25 May 2000
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, CJEU, C397/19, AX v Statul Român – Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, ordinary – Grand Chamber, preliminary ruling, 18 May 2021

Deciding court: Bucharest Tribunal and CJEU
Topic: Accountability – Judicial independence - civil liability of magistrates (judges and prosecutors) - Rule of law
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): No.
ECtHR jurisprudence:
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel of 5 judges, File no. 869/1/2017, appeal on points of law, Judgement no. 336/2017 from 13.12.2017

Deciding court: High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ)
Topic: Independence – Transfers and removal of magistrates, Sanctions, Legal remedies for individual judges against dismissal decisions, Judicial Councils
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): No. The ECtHR case is a direct follow up of the national case
ECtHR jurisprudence: Vilho Eskelinen and others v. Finland [GC], no 63235/00, § 62, CEDH 2007-II - set out the criteria for determining the applicability of the guaranteed access to court; Baka v. Hungary ([GC], no 20261/12, 23 June 2016, §§ 105-106 - applies to all types of disputes concerning magistrates; Micallef v. Malte [GC], no 17056/06, § 87, CEDH 2009 - set out the criteria for determining the applicability of the guaranteed access to court; Paluda v. Slovakia, no 33392/12, 23 May 2017 - the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to disciplinary  proceedings principle are also applicable to the temporary suspension
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, ECtHR, Application no. 3891/19, Case of Cînța v. Romania, 18 February 2020

Deciding court: Baia Mare District Court Maramureș County Court
Topic: Rule of law- non discrimination and equality before the law
National Follow Up Of (when relevant):
ECtHR jurisprudence: Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, 20 May 2010 B. v. Romania (no. 2), no. 1285/03, 19 February 2013 Çam v. Turkey, no. 51500/08, 23 February 2016 D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, 13 November 2007 D.M.D. v. Romania, no. 23022/13, 3 October 2017 E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, 22 January 2008 Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, 1 December 2009 Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, 22 March 2016 Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, 25 January 2000 K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, 12 July 2001 Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, 10 March 2011 Kocherov and Sergeyeva v. Russia, no. 16899/13, 29 March 2016 Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, 19 December 2018 S.S. v. Slovenia, no. 40938/16, 30 October 2018 Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway, [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019 X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, 26 November 2013
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, ORNISS CLUSTER

Deciding court: ECHR - Adeel Muhammad et Ramzan Muhammad v Romania ECHR - S.L. v Romania, ECHR - Amine Hassine v Romania
Topic: Rule of law conditionality; trust – judicial transparency;  Access to and efficient functioning of justice; Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens
National Follow Up Of (when relevant):
ECtHR jurisprudence: S.C. c. Roumanie, 2015, app.no 9356/11) N.M. c. Roumanie, 2015, app. no 75325/11 A. and others v. the United Kingdom, app no 3455/05, 19 02 2009 Lupsa v. Romania, app no. 10337/04, 08 09 2006 Regner v. The Czech Republic, App. no. 35289/11 Case of de Souza Iibeiro v. France, App no. 22689/07 Case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, App.no. 47287/15 Case of Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland, App. no. 5809/08. Case of Ljatifi v. The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia, App. no. 19017/16 Case of C.G. and others v. Bulgaria, app. no. 1365/07 
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, Cluj Court of Appeal, C-381/19, SC Banca E SA v. G.D., special appeal, April 3rd, 2019, 

Deciding court: Cluj Court of Appeal
Topic: Accountability: The principles of legal certainty and effectiveness
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): No.
ECtHR jurisprudence: None.
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, ECtHR, Application no. 22231/05, Case Lavric c. Romania, Judgment of 14 January 2014 (Final Judgment:14 April 2014) 

Deciding court: Călărași District Court Hunedoara County Court
Topic:  Trust  - Relationship with media;  - Doxing towards prosecutors Unfortunely, even in 2020 there is no legal disposition in order to protect effectively prosecutors’ reputation. I have had discussions with different prosecutors and they have complained about this legislative vacuum/ concrete intervention of authorities when articles are published regarding their pending activity in difficult cases
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The national case is NOT the direct follow up of a CJEU or ECtHR decision.
ECtHR jurisprudence: Dalban v. Romania ([GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI) Timciuc v. Romania (no. 28999/03, §§ 95-97, 12 October 2010) Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-III  Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-XIII) Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007;  Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, 14 October 2008, §§ 27-29 and 34-36 A.v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009;  Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, § 55, 18 January 2011;  Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 38681/08, §§ 40-41, 5 July 2011  Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012 Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 66 and 68, ECHR 2001-I, and Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 60, ECHR 2004-VI Lešník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV MGN Limitedv. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011 Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06, 28964/06, § 57, 12 September 2011   Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012 Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI;  Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 37, 27 November 2007 Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway ([GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III
TRIIAL CASE

Romania, Bucharest Court of Appeal, File no.39435/3/2009, appeal, Judgement no. 726 from 03.10.2011/ High Court of Cassation and Justice, File no. 39435/3/2009**, appeal on points of law, Judgement 3806/07.11.2013

Deciding court: Bucharest Court of Appeal/ High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ)
Topic: Rule of law - Prohibition of arbitrariness,  Impartiality and accountability - Predictive Justice
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): No. The ECtHR case is a direct follow up of the national case
ECtHR jurisprudence: Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 84, 7 February 2012 - the domestic authorities must struck a fair balance between the freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and the right to respect for his reputation under Article 8  Sokołowski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 45, 29 March 2005; Kwiecień v. Poland, no. 51744/99, § 51, 9 January 2007; and Paraskevopoulos, cited above, § 36 - the manner in which a locally elected official carries out his or her official duties and issues touching on his or her personal integrity are matters of general interest to the community  Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 44, 2 June 2016 - there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or debate on matters of public interest  Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 125, 23 April 2015; and Instytut Ekonomichnykh Reform, TOV, v. Ukraine, no. 61561/08, § 50, 2 June 2016 - the authorities had a particularly narrow margin of appreciation in assessing the need for the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression  Jalbă v. România, no. 43912/10, § 33, 18 February 2014 - the national courts are, in principle, better placed than an international court to assess the intention behind impugned phrases and statements and, in particular, to judge how the general public would interpret and react to them  Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 46, 4 April 2013; and Rungainis v. Latvia, no. 40597/08, § 63, 14 June 2018 - a sufficiently accurate and reliable factual basis proportionate to the nature and degree of the applicant’s statements and allegations must be established  Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 43, 4 October 2016 - persons taking part in a public debate on a matter of general concern are allowed to have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation, or in other words to make somewhat immoderate statements  Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; and Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003 - the chilling effect that a fear of sanction may have on the exercise of freedom of expression  Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 61, 24 April 2007, and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 61, 27 June 2017 - under certain circumstances, the sanction imposed may have a dissuasive effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (all of the above cited by the ECtHR) Sipos v. Romania, no.26125/04, 3 August 2011, Petrina v. Romania, no.78060/01, § 42, 14 October 2008 - the fact of accusing certain persons implies the obligation to provide a sufficient real basis and that even a value judgment may prove excessive if it is totally devoid of a real basis (cited by the Bucharest Court of Appeal and by the High Court of Cassation and Justice)
Total Row: 14 / View:
Page:
 
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy