CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 11 October 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24380/17 Codruţa Mariana TRANDAFIR against Romania lodged on 22 March 2017 communicated on 20 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in disciplinary proceedings opened by the Higher Council of the Judiciary ( Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii – hereinafter “the CSM”) against the applicant, prosecutor at the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. On 20 May 2013, the applicant was appointed as Head of the Department for Preventing and Fighting Economic and Financial Crime for a period of three years. By a decision of 11 November 2015 and in application of Section 99 h) of Law no. 303/2004, the CSM imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant (a warning) for delays in solving the criminal files assigned to her. As a consequence of this disciplinary penalty, on 24 November 2015, the CSM issued a decision to revoke the applicant from her position of head of the aforementioned department. By final decision of 11 July 2016 (served to the applicant on 22   September 2016), the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal seeking to annul the CSM’s decision of 11 November 2015. The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right to a fair trial was infringed because the Hight Court of Cassation and Justice had a limited jurisdiction to re-examine the CSM’s disciplinary decision. In particular, she highlighted that under Romanian law, the Hight Court of Cassation and Justice did not have jurisdiction to re-examine the facts established by the CSM and no testimonial evidence could be allowed in the proceedings before it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, under its civil or criminal head, applicable to the proceedings conducted in the present case (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007 ‑ II, Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 100-106, 23 June 2016, and Kövesi v. Romania , no. 3594/19, §§ 105-110, 5 May 2020)?   2.     If so, did the High Court of Cassation and Justice have the ability to handle the matter effectively and to provide a sufficient review of the applicant’s case, as required by Article 6 of the Convention (to be compared with Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and   2   others, §§ 84-89, 6   November 2018)?