CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juillet 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 } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 11 August 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 14699/21 Ionuț-Daniel ECOBESCU against Romania lodged on 12 March 2021 communicated on 21 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure as evidence ( ridicarea de obiecte ) of 1,094,790 euros (EUR) belonging to the applicant in the context of an investigation pending against third parties, and the alleged lack of possibility for the applicant to put his case before the authorities in order to contest the measure and its duration. The criminal investigation started in 2019 and is still pending before the prosecutor. The seizure measure was adopted on 15   July 2020 and is still in force. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that domestic law does not provide for the right of access to a court for someone in his situation who wishes to challenge the seizure of their property. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complained that he had been deprived of his property for an excessive duration without any possibility to put his case before the authorities. He also submitted that the seizure of money as evidence was not in accordance with the law and had been used by the authorities in order to avoid taking a precautionary measure that would have been accompanied by fair trial guarantees. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, stemming from the seizure of his goods as evidence in criminal proceedings against a third party?   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 given 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 have a reasonable opportunity to present his cause to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measure interfering with his right of property?   In particular, did the legal framework in force at the relevant time allow for interested parties such as the applicant (who was not party to the investigation) to participate to the criminal proceedings in order to challenge the measure (the seizure as evidence) and its duration? In the affirmative, was this possibility open to the applicant?   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, 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 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.