CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     Communicated on 13 October 2015   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33792/10 Andrei Sever MUREŞAN against Romania lodged on 9 June 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Andrei Sever Mureşan, is a French and Romanian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Bucharest. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the case The applicant was one of the founders and one of the major shareholders of Dacia Felix Bank (“DFB”), the first private bank to open in post ‑ communist Romania. He was also a co-owner of a holding company and controlled a number of other financial and industrial companies located in France, Luxembourg and Switzerland. 2.     Criminal investigation against the applicant In 1995 inspections of the Romanian National Bank (“the RNB”) revealed gross misreporting and misconduct on the part of the DFB. On 28 December 1995 the president and vice-president of DBF lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and two other individuals (M.H., the former president of the DFB, and J.F.V.) in connection with the significant losses caused to the bank by their transactions. An identical criminal complaint was sent to the Swiss, Italian and Luxembourg authorities, as part of the companies involved in the allegedly fraudulent transactions were registered in those countries. A criminal investigation was opened against the applicant and M.H. on charges of fraud, forgery of documents and use of forged documents. On 7   January 1997 the applicant was arrested by the Romanian authorities. He was held in pre-trial detention until June 1997 when the High   Court of Cassation and Justice ordered his release. On 7 October 1997 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Supreme   Court of Justice indicted the applicant and M.H. for several counts of fraud committed between 1993 and 1995 and the case file was registered with the competent court. 3.     The applicant’s detention and conviction in Switzerland In June 1999 the applicant was arrested at the Hungarian border on the basis of a warrant issued by the Swiss authorities, which had instituted criminal proceedings against him in connection with the offences mentioned in the criminal complaint lodged by the BDF. The trial lasted two years. The applicant, who was held in pre-trial detention for one year and five months in a Swiss prison, was partly convicted and partly acquitted of the charges brought against him. The request of the Romanian authorities to have the applicant extradited was granted by the Swiss authorities. Subsequently, the applicant was sent to Romania where the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. 4.     The applicant’s conviction in Romania While the applicant and M.H. were detained and prosecuted in Switzerland the criminal proceedings instituted against them by the Romanian authorities continued. Their case was remitted a few times to the prosecuting authorities. Thus, on 29 May 1998 the Suceava District   Court remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office instructing it to re ‑ draft the indictment as it did not contain a clear description of the acts committed by the defendants (the dates when they were committed, the damage caused by each of them etc.). On 30 December 1998 a new indictment was drafted and the case was sent back to the court. By a judgment of 9 May 2003 the Constanța District Court acquitted the applicant and his co-defendant of all charges. It also dismissed the civil complaint lodged by bank E (the successor of DFB) as ill-founded holding that bank E could lodge a civil action based on contractual liability against the companies involved in the transactions which caused its losses. The court noted the applicant’s lack of intent to deceive and pointed out that most of the acts committed by him were not proscribed by law as at the time of the events (the beginning of the 90s) the banking activities in Romania were not so strictly regulated. Bank E and the prosecutor appealed. On 18 February 2009 the Constanța County Court noted that the applicant had committed the acts between 1992 and 1995 and therefore the time limitation for his criminal liability had already expired. However, the court considered that the requirements for delictual liability were satisfied and therefore it ordered the applicant and H.M. to jointly pay USD   121   million, 15, 8 million Romanian lei and 10   million Swiss francs to bank   E. The decision of the Constanța County Court became final on 18   December   2009 when the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Constanța Court of Appeal as ill ‑ founded. COMPLAINT Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?