CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 avril 2025

.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 19 May 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48082/20 Gheorghe ȘERBAN against Romania lodged on 16 October 2020 communicated on 29 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant by a private party. The proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Bacău Court of Appeal of 18 March 2020 (served on 27 April 2020) which overturned the applicant’s acquittal by the first-instance court, convicted him of hitting and other forms of violence and of threatening behaviour and sentenced him to a criminal fine of RON 3,200 (EUR 660). The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings against him were unfair and violated his right to equality of arms because the last-instance court overturned his acquittal based essentially on the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution whom the court had assessed directly and after unlawfully refusing to hear directly also the witnesses for the defence whose testimonies had been relevant for the applicant’s acquittal by the first-instance court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 d) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to equality of arms and the overall fairness of the proceedings impaired because the last-instance court overturned the applicant’s acquittal based essentially on the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution whom the court had assessed directly and after refusing allegedly unlawfully to hear directly also the witnesses for the defence whose testimonies had been relevant for the applicant’s acquittal by the first-instance court (see Găitănaru v. Romania , no. 26082/05, §§   26-29, 26   June 2012; Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 46182/08, §§   33-35, 5   July 2016; and Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland , no. 38797/17, §§   30-38, 16 July 2019)?