CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2024

.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 17 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 42335/21 and 42368/21 Lucian-Roland STOICA against Romania and Gigel ROȘIANU against Romania lodged on 6 August 2021 and 6 August 2021 respectively communicated on 29 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the criminal proceedings opened against Mr   Stoica and Mr Roșianu, respectively, for the offence of accessory to influence peddling and the offence of influence peddling allegedly committed by them in December 2008. By a final judgment of 8   February 2021, the Craiova Court of Appeal convicted the applicants of the above-mentioned offences, sentenced each of them to 2 years imprisonment and stayed Mr   Roșianu’s sentence. Relying, in substance on Article 7 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the criminal proceedings against them had violated their rights to a fair hearing, to no punishment without law and to prohibition of abuse of rights. In particular, the national courts had convicted and sentenced them unlawfully by arbitrarily extending the statute of limitation of their criminal liability. The courts gave effect to two decrees issued by the President of Romania on 16 March and 15 April 2020 which had instituted a state of emergency in the country in the context of Covid-19 health crisis and which had stayed the running of the statutory limits of criminal liability in all criminal cases pending examination before the courts for 60 days. According to the applicants, the decrees in question violated the constitutional principle of hierarchy of legal norms because they amended the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code even though they had not had the legal force to do so. Moreover, they allegedly contained no provisions which could have allowed the courts to extend the statutory limits of criminal liability prescribed by the Criminal Code. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Is Article 7 applicable to the present cases? In particular, are the rules governing the statutory limits of criminal liability provisions of substantive criminal law within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention (see Previty v.   Italy (dec.), no. 1845/08, §§ 79-85, 12 February 2013)? 2. If so, were Mr Stoica’s and Mr Roșianu’s convictions and sentences, respectively, for the offence of accessory to influence peddling and the offence of influence peddling compatible with the requirements of Article   7 of the Convention? In particular, were the convictions and sentences in question imposed by the national courts in violation of the statutory limits of criminal liability prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code in force at the time when the applicants committed the offences in question?