CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 5 December 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17412/16 Vasile Sorin MARIN against Romania lodged on 23 March 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant in the present case was fined on 28 September 2011 for a minor offence ( contravenție ) committed on the night of 24/25   September   2011 relating to disorderly acts causing public disorder. The applicant has challenged this measure and paid the fine of 200   RON (approximately 50 EUR). Subsequently, on 22 March 2012, criminal proceedings were initiated against him for having had a disorderly and violent conduct in a public place, in relation to the same incident of 24/25 September 2011. He was finally convicted by the Bacău Court of Appeal on 15   December   2015 (notified to him on 14 January 2016) and sentenced to one year of imprisonment, the execution of which was suspended. The applicant alleges that this conviction infringed his right not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence under Article 4 of Protocol No.   7.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been tried and punished twice for the same offence by the relevant domestic courts, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No.   7?   In particular, did the fining of the applicant amount to the determination of a “criminal charge” against him, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see, for instance, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §   53, ECHR   2009)?   If so, did the subsequent criminal procedure terminated by the applicant’s conviction amount to duplication of trial or punishment ( bis ) for the same offence ( idem ) as proscribed by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see A and B v.   Norway [GC], no. 24130/11, 15 November 2016)?