CASE OF MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Mihalache v. Romania (no. 54012/10)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-10-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 54012/10
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2019-07-08 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0708JUD005401210
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 41;P7-4
Judges: Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani;María Elósegui
Represented by: BRATU M.
Issue: Article 18 of the Criminal Code (as in force in August 2008) ; Articles 10 and 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as in force in August 2008) ; Article 87 § 5 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 on road traffic 

Strasbourg case-law cited: A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, 15 November 2016;Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 127, ECHR 2013;Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37;Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, no. 24117/08, §§ 123-24 and 134, 14 March 2013;Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.), no. 72776/01, 9 March 2006;Bujniţa v. Moldova, no. 36492/02, § 23, 16 January 2007;Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 39, 18 January 2007;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 143, ECHR 2012;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 81-82, Series A no. 22;Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, ECHR 1999 VII;Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 104, ECHR 2003-X;Fadin v. Russia, no. 58079/00, § 32, 27 July 2006;Gacon v. France, no. 1092/04, § 34 in fine, 22 May 2008;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 29, Series A no. 18;Goncharovy v. Russia, no. 77989/01, 27 November 2008;Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 244, 4 March 2014;Grecu v. Romania, no. 75101/01, § 54, 30 November 2006;Harutyunyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 34334/04, 7 December 2006;Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 40905/98, § 51, 8 June 2004;Horciag v. Romania (dec.), no. 70982/01, 15 March 2005;Ioan Pop v. Romania (dec.), no. 40301/04, § 25, 28 June 2011;Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, no. 22007/11, §§ 48-49 and 61, 18 May 2017;Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 51, Series A no. 112;Kadušić v. Switzerland, no. 43977/13, §§ 82 and 84, 9 January 2018;Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 179, 17 May 2016;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 68, Series A no. 28;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI;Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 95, 11 December 2018;Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 245, 19 December 2017;Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-X;Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 118 and 120, 8 November 2016;Marguš v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, §§ 114 and 120, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Mulot v. France (dec.), no. 37211/97, 14 December 1999;Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, § 62, 30 March 2017;Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 114 15 and 118, 15 November 2018;Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, §§ 35-39, ECHR 2004-VIII;Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 49, Series A no. 73;Ramda v. France, no. 78477/11, § 81, 19 December 2017;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 122, 6 November 2018;Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, §§ 50 and 64, ECHR 2015;Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 228-229, ECHR 2015;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 52-56, ECHR 2000 V;S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 74, 22 October 2018;Sancaklı v. Turkey, no. 1385/07, § 30, 15 May 2018;Savinskiy v. Ukraine, no. 6965/02, § 25, 28 February 2006;Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 167, ECHR 2015;Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009;Šimkus v. Lithuania, no. 41788/11, § 47, 13 June 2017;Sismanidis and Sitaridis v. Greece, nos. 66602/09 and 71879/12, § 42, 9 June 2016;Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A no. 161;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 47-48, ECHR 2005 X;Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, ECHR 2005 VIII;Storbråten, (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007;Sundqvist v. Finland (dec.), no. 75602/01, 22 November 2005;Tomasović v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, § 23, 18 October 2011;Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 2376/03, § 54, 14 January 2010;Vedernikova v. Russia, no. 25580/02, § 30, 12 July 2007
External sources: Explanatory Report on Protocol No. 7 to the Convention;Articles 31, 32 and 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

Conclusion: Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Reopening of case;Fundamental defect in proceedings;Conviction;Criminal offence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE