CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 février 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 20 February 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33766/18 Iulia CIOROIANU against Romania lodged on 9 July 2018 communicated on 2 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the principle ne bis in idem . In October 2014 the applicant was fined approximately 600 Euros by the Customs Office of the Henri Coandă International Airport of Bucharest for having committed the minor offence ( contravenție ) of not declaring to customs clerks a large number of smartphones and tablets upon entering the country. The fine was applied in accordance with the provisions of Section   653 (1) of Government Decision 707/2006 and the applicant paid it without ever contesting it. In 2017 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on account of the same facts. She was accused of smuggling a large number of smartphones and tablets in October 2014, a criminal offence provided for by Section 270 (2) (a) of Law 86/2006. The criminal proceedings ended with the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 8 May 2018, by which the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment of three years. The applicant complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention that she has been punished in criminal proceedings for an offence for which she has already been finally convicted in October 2014.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been punished twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibited by Article   4 §   1 of Protocol No.   7? If so, did the proceedings fall within the exceptions envisaged by Article   4 §   2 of Protocol No.   7 ( Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, 8 July 2019)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.