Source: https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/50266-13-mihai-v-rumunia-decyzja-europejskiego-522815847
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 23:59:18
Document Index: 311555573

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', 'Art. 391', '§ 105', '§ 109', '§ 107', '§ 37', '§ 1']

50266/13, MIHAI v. RUMUNIA - Decyzja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka
50266/13, MIHAI v. RUMUNIA - Decyzja...
50266/13
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0903DEC005026613
2. The Romanian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The German Government did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).
6. The police officer on duty in the courtroom confiscated the applicant's weapon and ammunition. The officer drew up a report describing the applicant's conduct.
12. On 13 October 2008 a criminal investigation in connection with the incident of 6 May 2008 (see paragraphs 4-6 above) was initiated against the applicant. On 21 November 2008 the applicant was remanded in custody. On 16 March 2009 he was released from prison under judicial control.
13. On 15 December 2008 the applicant was charged with two concurrent offences arising from the same act, namely the offence of non–observance of the regulations concerning firearms and ammunition (nerespectarea regimului armelor şi muniţiilor) under Article 279 § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 24 below), and the offence of outrage to public decency and breach of public order (ultraj contra bunelor moravuri şi tulburarea ordinii publice) under Article 321 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 25 below).
14. On 7 March 2011 the Timişoara District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years and four months' imprisonment, suspended on probation.
17. On 1 October 2012 the Timişoara District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years and four months' imprisonment with effective execution of the sentence.
23. Art. 391 provided that the court could replace an unpaid fine with up to 50 hours of community service.
31. The Government admitted that the criminal proceedings concerned the same events as the administrative proceedings, and that the sanctions applied to the applicant in both sets of proceedings were criminal in nature. They argued, however, that the administrative proceedings had not yet become final within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention when the criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. Since the proceedings took place in parallel the present case did not fulfil the res judicata criterion set for the applicability of the ne bis in idem principle, and therefore the application should be rejected as inadmissible ratione materiae.
33. The Court does not consider it necessary to ascertain whether the first sanction imposed on the applicant (the administrative fine) was criminal in nature and whether the offences for which the applicant was fined and then prosecuted were the same (see the general principles concerning Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 summarised in A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 105-34, 15 November 2016, ECHR 2016). Indeed, even assuming that this was the case, the application would in any event be inadmissible for the following reasons.
34. The Court reiterates that the aim of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings that have been concluded by a "final" decision (see A and B, cited above, § 109).
35. According to the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7, which itself refers back to the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, a "decision is final 'if, according to the traditional expression, it has acquired the force of res judicata. This is the case when it is irrevocable, that is to say when no further ordinary remedies are available or when the parties have exhausted such remedies or have permitted the time-limit to expire without availing themselves of them'". This approach is well entrenched in the Court's case-law (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 107; Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 37, ECHR 2004–VIII; and Horciag v. Romania (dec.), no. 70982/01, 15 March 2005).
40. The two sets of proceedings were thus pending concurrently until 19 February 2013, when the applicant's criminal conviction to a prison term became final (see paragraph 18 above).
However, the applicant did not continue these proceedings and permitted the time–limit to expire without exhausting the ordinary remedies which could have led to the cancellation of the administrative fine (see paragraph 10 above).
43. The Court is of the opinion that by not seeking the cancellation of the administrative fine, the applicant did not offer to the national authorities the opportunity to avoid the continuation of proceedings allegedly criminal in nature and which allegedly concerned the same facts as the proceedings concluded on 19 February 2013 by a "final" criminal conviction. Nothing indicates that in the particular circumstances of the present case, a request for cancellation would have been inadequate or ineffective.
44. It follows that the Government's objection (see paragraph 32 above) should be upheld and that the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.