CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 septembre 2022

.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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 17 October 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33254/17 Silviu Ionuț LUPU against Romania and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 27 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants, wherein they all have been acquitted by the first instance courts. However, on various dates set out in the appended table, the appellate courts have convicted them without, inter alia , re-hearing the witnesses on which the conviction was based, the applicants themselves and further newly proposed witnesses. The applications may therefore raise issues in respect of the fairness of the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Găitănaru v.   Romania , no. 26082/05, §§ 26-33, 26 June 2012, Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v.   Iceland , no. 38797/17, §§ 34-42, 16 July 2019; and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) , no. 57575/14, §§ 55-56, 10   November 2020). In respect of applications nos. 35206/19 and 49695/19, the applicants also complain that by changing the legal classification of the charges against them from having committed murder into having been accomplices to murder, directly in the conviction judgment, without giving them the opportunity to put forward any related defence, the appellate court breached their rights provided for under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) of the Convention. The applicants’ extraordinary appeals challenging this issue were dismissed as ill-founded, essentially in so far as the said change did not worsen their position in the trial.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES In respect of all applications 1.     Before the court of last instance, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was their conviction by that court, after acquittal by the lower court, compatible with the requirements of the said article, considering, inter alia , that their conviction was based on the appellate court’s reconsideration of the facts established by the first instance court without a direct examination of relevant testimonial evidence and, where applicable, without hearing the newly proposed witnesses and the applicant (see Găitănaru v. Romania , no. 26082/05, §   32, 26 June 2012, Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland , no. 38797/17, §§ 34-42, 16 July 2019; and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) , no. 57575/14, §   55 ‑ 56, 10   November 2020)? Applications nos. 35206/19 and 49695/19 2.     Were the applicants informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and were they afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no.   25444/94, §§ 42-63, ECHR 1999 ‑ II), in view of the change by the appellate court in its judgment of the legal classification of the charges against them?   Appendix List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Final (conviction) judgment 1. 33254/17 Lupu v. Romania 21/04/2017 Silviu Ionuț LUPU 1983 Corcioveni Romanian   Rodica Magdalena JALBĂ Galaţi Court of Appeal, 03/10/2016, notified on 11/11/2016 2. 28738/19 Rus v. Romania 09/05/2019 Călin RUS 1988 Luna Romanian   Andrei POPESCU Cluj Court of Appeal, 13/11/2018 3. 35206/19 Durleci v. Romania 19/06/2019 Dorel DURLECI b:1972; d: 2021 Pursued by heirs   Mirela DURLECI (wife) 1975 Stoenești Romanian   Laura-Andreea DURLECI (daughter) 2000 Mihǎești Romanian   Doru-Vasile DURLECI (son; see application no.   49695/19 under 5. below) 1994 Craiova Romanian   Florentin GHEORGHE-SORESCU Pitești Court of Appeal, 01/11/2018, drafted on 21/12/2018 4. 41088/19 Galben v. Romania 25/07/2019 Ioan GALBEN 1982 Feldru Romanian     Cluj Court of Appeal, 01/02/2019 5. 49695/19 Durleci v. Romania 20/06/2019 Doru-Vasile DURLECI 1994 Craiova Romanian Florentin GHEORGHE-SORESCU See under 3. above