CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 14250/21 SANTANICO TRADE CENTER S.R.L. against Romania lodged on 4 March 2021 communicated on 30 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure as evidence ( ridicarea de obiecte ), and the subsequent order to preserve for the duration of the criminal proceedings, goods belonging to the applicant company in the context of an investigation pending against third parties, and the alleged lack of possibility for the applicant company to put its case before the authorities in order to contest the measure and its duration. The applicant company alleges that the measure of preserving the goods for the duration of the proceedings, taken by the prosecutor on 18 August 2020 and still in force, concerned its entire commercial stock and put a stop to its activity. The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention that domestic law does not provide for the right of access to a court for someone in its situation. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant company complains about the lack of a legitimate aim and lack of proportionality of the measure of 18   August 2020. The measure concerned a high number of goods and had prevented the applicant company from continuing its commercial activity, imposing an allegedly excessive burden on account of its duration in the absence of a possibility to put the case before the authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, stemming from the seizure of its goods as evidence in criminal proceedings against a third party and the subsequent obligation to preserve those goods for the duration of the proceedings?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company given the alleged repercussions of the measure, namely the difficulty for the applicant company to continue its commercial activity (see Hábenczius v. Hungary , no. 44473/06, § 34, 21   October 2014), and the duration of the period over which the measure has been applied (see Cernea v. Romania , no.   7486/12, §§ 46-50, 18   December 2018)?   3.     Furthermore, bearing in mind the procedural obligations contained in Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and the State’s obligation to ensure in its domestic legal order that the right to property is sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies enable the victims of an infringement in this respect to assert their rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v.   Romania , no. 38072/11, § 78, 21 July 2020), did the applicant company have a reasonable opportunity to present its cause to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measure interfering with its right of property? In particular, did the legal framework in force at the relevant time allow for interested parties such as the applicant company (who was not party to the investigation) to participate to the criminal proceedings in order to challenge the measure (the order to preserve the goods for the duration of the proceedings) and its duration? In the affirmative, was this possibility open to the applicant company? In a situation where ownership of the assets subject to the measure taken in the present case is claimed by someone, such as the applicant company, who was not a party to the criminal proceedings, did the legal framework in force at the relevant time allow for other possibilities to vindicate their property rights, for example to seek compensation in civil proceedings ( acțiunea în răspundere civilă delictuală )? If so, were these avenues open to the applicant company to this end?   The parties are asked to support their arguments in respect of the above questions with examples of relevant case-law of the domestic courts.