CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 25 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 8115/15 Daniela DOBRILĂ against Romania lodged on 5 February 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in the applicant’s conviction and sentence to three years imprisonment by the final judgment of 19 May 2017 of the Cluj Court of Appeal for, amongst other things, the offence of revealing non ‑ public information. The applicant alleged that by convicting her of the offence of revealing non-public information the domestic courts breached Article 7 of the Convention because the offence in question was not clearly defined by domestic law and the courts interpreted it extensively to her detriment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s conviction for the offence of revealing non-public information compatible with the requirements of Article 7 § 1? In particular, was the offence clearly defined by domestic law, was it foreseeable for the applicant that at the material time her conduct constituted an offence under the Criminal Code and did the domestic courts interpret the offence extensively to the applicant’s detriment?