5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Voluntari. 6.  In 2002 he was the legal secretary of Voluntari City Hall in charge of registering applications for restitution of land based on Law no. 18/1991. On an unspecified date in 2003 the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court initiated a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant and two other individuals, M.C.I. and N.G. 7.  The injured party, M.M. ‒ who filed the criminal complaint ‒maintained that in December 2002, N.G. – who was employed at Voluntari City Hall – had, at the request of the applicant, antedated the registration of six applications for title submitted by M.C.I. 8.  On 19 February and 23 July 2004 respectively the prosecutor questioned N.G. On both occasions she stated that she had antedated the registration of the applications submitted by M.C.I. at the applicant’s express request. 9.  The applicant gave statements on 27 February and 11 August 2004. He admitted that he knew M.C.I. (“as an acquaintance but not as a friend”) but denied that he had asked N.G. to falsify the date of registration of the applications. 10.  An expert report ordered by the prosecutor confirmed the fact that N.G. had antedated the registration of the six applications. 11.  The prosecutor charged N.G. with committing intellectual forgery and charged the applicant with acting as N.G.’s accomplice. He decided not to institute a criminal investigation against M.C.I. 12.  The injured party stated before the first-instance court that the only fact that she knew was that M.C.I. had asked some civil servants at Voluntari City Hall to antedate the registration of the applications. 13.  At a hearing on 11 March 2005 the Buftea District Court questioned the applicant and N.G. in respect of the charges brought against them. N.G. changed the statements she had made initially before the prosecutor and stated that the applicant had only called her and asked her to help M.C.I. to register the applications for title. She also stated that she had antedated the registration at M.C.I.’s request. The applicant did not change his statements and continued to deny any involvement in committing the intellectual forgery. He stated that he had only called N.G. and asked her to help M.C.I. with the registration of the applications as the latter had arrived after closing time.
Two other witnesses made statements at the same hearing. However, their statements did not provide any further clarification concerning the applicant’s role in committing any offence. 14.  The district court changed the legal classification of the offence with which the applicant had been charged to inciting intellectual forgery. 15.  By a judgment of 9 May 2005 the Buftea District Court convicted N.G. of intellectual forgery, imposed a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment and placed her on probation. The court noted that N.G. had given contradictory statements to the prosecutor and to the court with respect to the applicant’s role in the commission of the offence. It held that the statement given to the prosecutor, but not maintained before the court – according to which the applicant had asked her to antedate the registration of the applications – was not corroborated by the other pieces of evidence adduced before it. The applicant was therefore acquitted on the grounds of not having committed the offence with which he had been charged. 16.  An appeal against this decision was lodged by the prosecutor’s office but was dismissed as unfounded by the Bucharest County Court on 16 December 2005. The applicant, co-defendant N.G. and the witnesses were not heard directly by the County Court. It upheld the decision of the first­instance court, emphasising that there was no evidence that the applicant had asked N.G. to antedate the registration of the applications. 17.  The prosecutor lodged an appeal on points of law, pointing to fundamental factual errors in the decisions of the two lower courts regarding the applicant’s acquittal and claiming that the court had made a superficial assessment of the evidence in the file. 18.  No new pieces of evidence were adduced before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 19.  On 24 February 2006 the Bucharest Court of Appeal heard submissions from the prosecutor and counsel for the defence and allowed the applicant to address it at the end of the hearing (ultimul cuvânt al inculpatului). 20.  By a final decision of 3 March 2006, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor’s office, quashing the two previous decisions. It convicted the applicant of inciting intellectual forgery and imposed a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment, placing him on probation. 21.  The appellate court based its reasoning on the evidence existent in the file. It held that both the lower courts had made a wrong assessment of evidence. However, it did not question the applicant, the co-defendant N.G., or the witnesses, instead merely citing some of the statements they had made before the prosecutor and the first-instance court. It referred in particular to the statements submitted by N.G. to the prosecutor on 19 February and 23 July 2004 and before the district court on 11 March 2005, and to the statements given by the applicant on 27 February and 11 August 2004. Having reassessed the facts without rehearing any evidence, it arrived at the conclusion that the applicant had incited N.G. to commit intellectual forgery. 22.  The final written decision containing the court’s reasoning became available on 20 March 2006. The applicant alleged that he had been served with a copy of the decision later but he was not able to state any date.