CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 25 November 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56397/15 Ion DEDU against Romania lodged on 6 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in disciplinary proceedings which were opened against the applicant by the Romanian Intelligence Service ( Serviciul Român de Informații – SRI). In particular, the applicant alleged that by taking and enforcing the decision to consign him, the authorities breached, respectively, his rights to liberty and to freedom of movement provided for by Articles 5 § 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 because the measure was unlawful and/or did not pursue a legitimate aim, and/or the courts failed to examine whether it was proportionate. He also alleged that the proceedings he was involved in were unfair and breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 because (i) the courts lacked impartiality as they were composed of judges which were vetted by SRI during the procedure which must be followed in order to obtain ORNISS certificates; (ii) during the court proceedings neither the applicant, nor his chosen legal representative had access to essential evidence which was classified and which could be used for his defence; and (iii) the domestic courts failed to provide reasons for their judgments with regard to his arguments concerning his consignment. He further alleged that (i) the unlawful decision to consign him also at his home for nine days; and (ii) the fact that he was denied access to the orders issued against him and the documents grounding the said orders which concerned him directly amounted to a breach of his right to private and family life provided for by Article 8. Lastly, the applicant alleged that the domestic proceedings did not provide him with an effective remedy for the alleged breaches of his Convention rights in breach of Article 13. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the disciplinary sanction of consignment imposed on the applicant amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention or to an interference with his right to freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 5 or 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see De Tomasso v. Italy [GC] no. 43395/09, 23   February 2017)? 2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the examination of his case? In particular, did the court proceedings respect the principle of equality of arms and of adversarial proceedings in so far as neither the applicant, nor his chosen legal representative had access to the classified documents and evidence, including the SRI’s answer to his questions, which could be used for his defence (see, mutatis mutandis , Regner v. the Czech Republic ([GC], no.   35289/11, 19 September 2017)? Also, were the domestic courts impartial in view of the fact that they were composed of judges who were vetted by SRI during the procedure which had to be followed in order to obtain the necessary security clearance in order to be allowed access to classified documents? Lastly, did the domestic courts provide reasons for their judgments, particularly with regard to the applicant’s arguments concerning his consignment (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004)? 3.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private and family life in view of the fact (i) that he was prohibited from leaving his home for a significant part of the day during his consignment; and (ii) that during the court proceedings he was denied access to documents and information concerning him directly? If so, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? 4.     Did the domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant provide him with an effective remedy for his complaints, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?