CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 13 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s6FDB555A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 37702/06 Dănuţ Augustin MUREŞAN against Romania lodged on 13 September 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Dănuţ Augustin Mureşan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Oradea. At the relevant time the applicant, a career military officer (a major), was the liaison person in charge of supervising and approving the works undertaken for renovation and modernisation of his military base. On 28 April 2004 the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office committed the applicant to trial on several counts of corruption concerning public tenders. B.V., a civilian, was also indicted by the prosecutor for giving a bribe to the applicant. B.V. failed to appear in court throughout the proceedings. He was summoned at an address in Romania of which his counsel informed the courts. According to the information gathered by the courts from the administration, B.V. was living at that time in the United States of America (“the USA”). The Bucharest Regional Military Tribunal examined the case as a first ‑ instance court. It heard testimony from witnesses for the prosecution and allowed two witnesses for the defence to be called. It appears that those two witnesses failed to appear. The applicant gave statements before the court. On 10 September 2004 the Military Tribunal found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a suspended sentence of three years and six months. The parties appealed. The applicant maintained his innocence and argued that the first-instance court had made an incorrect interpretation of the evidence in the file. The Bucharest Military Court of Appeal gave judgment on 3 May 2005. In an extensively reasoned decision it dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. The parties appealed on points of law. The applicant reiterated the representations he had made in the appeal proceedings, and in addition argued that B.V. should be summoned at his address in the USA and interviewed by the court, as his statements could have an influence on the applicant’s situation. In a final decision of 15 March 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Criminal Section, dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant, as it considered that the lower courts had correctly established the facts of the case and classified the crimes in law. It reiterated the arguments advanced by the Military Court of Appeal concerning the claims raised by the applicant in his previous appeal. It also considered that the evidence in the file was sufficient to secure the applicant’s conviction and there were no doubts that could have been clarified by statements from B.V. The High Court allowed the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor’s Office and ordered that the applicant serve his sentence in detention. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the military courts were not independent and impartial, as the judges were career officers who were in uniform at the trial; they were part of the military hierarchy and thus subordinate to the executive power in the State and obeying military discipline. He also points out that the military courts are also dependent on the executive for their budget. He avers that during the investigations some witnesses were coerced into making statements against him and himself felt the coercion by the presence of a military prosecutor at the investigations, and points out that these elements are sufficient to raise doubts in his mind as to the independence and impartiality of the military prosecutors and courts. 2.     Under Article 6 § 3 (d) the applicant complains that he could not effectively exercise his right to have witnesses examined by the courts and reiterates that he was not able to confront the alleged briber, B.V., as the courts refused to summon him at his real address in the USA. QUESTION 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? In particular, were the military courts which dealt with his case independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?