Art. 6 § 1 din Convenție. Dreptul la un proces echitabil (aspect civil). Art. 1 din Protocolul nr. 1 adițional la Convenție. Proceduri administrative și judiciare de control al averilor persoanelor care dețin funcții sau demnități publice
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Right to a fair trial (civil aspect). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Administrative and judicial procedures for the control of the assets of persons holding public offices or dignities

Summary/Abstract: Within this judgment, the European Court of Human Rights had the opportunity to examine the administrative and judicial procedures under Romanian law regarding the control of the assets of dignitaries, magistrates, persons with management and control positions and civil servants from the perspective of the applicant's complaint, which alleged a violation of the right to a fair trial provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the right to property, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 additional to the Convention. The Court established the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (under the civil aspect) and, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, found that the right to a fair trial had not been violated, since the confiscation of the unjustified part of the applicant’s assets had been ordered by a final court decision delivered at the end of administrative and judicial proceedings in which the applicant had been represented by a lawyer of his choice, who had had ample opportunity to debate the opposing party’s arguments and to challenge the aspects contained in the assessment report drawn up by the National Integrity Agency, as well as in the court decisions delivered in those proceedings. The allocation of the burden of proof with regard to the explanation of the sources of income had been in accordance with the Constitution and the case-law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and no element of arbitrariness had been revealed in the examination of the applicant’s case by the domestic courts. The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in its component concerning the regulation of the use of property, since the measure of confiscation of the unjustified part of the assets of a police officer who had held senior positions had a sufficient basis in domestic law. The regulatory framework for the domestic law pursued a legitimate aim, consisting in ensuring integrity in the exercise of public functions and preventing corruption. Furthermore, the domestic law was foreseeable and the measure of confiscation was proportionate to the aim pursued. In this context, the Court recognised a wide margin of appreciation for the national authorities in a specific context concerning the fight against corruption and considered that a fair balance between the competing interests had been maintained, since the applicant had benefited from sufficient guarantees in the adversarial proceedings following which the confiscation was ordered, his financial situation having been duly examined by the national courts.

• Details
• Contents