5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Timişoara. 6.  On the evening of 17 November 2005 the applicant’s family car was involved in an accident: it hit a person who was crossing the street at a pedestrian crossing and the driver then fled from the scene of the accident. 7.  Soon after the events, a police patrol alerted to the accident by an eyewitness went to the applicant’s home, informed the applicant about the accident and asked him who the driver was. The applicant stated that he had been driving the car that evening. As the applicant smelled of alcohol, he was taken to hospital for a blood test and then to the police station, where he made a written confession in the presence of a lawyer. 8.  On the same evening, the police officers drafted a report on the above events. 9.  On 8 December 2005 the applicant changed his statement and told the prosecutor that his wife had been the driver on the night of the accident, but that he had lied to protect her. His wife confirmed his statement. 10.  The applicant was committed for trial on charges of failure to stop after an accident and drink driving. 11.  Before the Timiş County Court the applicant pleaded innocent. He also requested that the first statement he had made in the police headquarters be removed from file, as he had made it before the police had informed him of the nature of the accusation and before he had had time to prepare his defence. He also reiterated that his wife had been driving the car that night. 12.  The court heard statements from several witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence. The evidence before it included a medical report confirming that the applicant had had 2.55 per mil alcohol in his blood on the night of the accident. 13.  On 15 June 2007 the County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a three-year suspended sentence. The court noted that the applicant had changed his position during the investigation but considered that his initial confession was more consistent with the evidence in the file. 14.  The applicant appealed. He gave evidence before the Timişoara Court of Appeal and reiterated that the statement of 17 November 2005 and the police report of the same day should not have been allowed as evidence as his statements had been taken in violation of his defence rights. 15.  On 1 November 2007 the Timişoara Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant on the ground that the confession of 17 November 2005 did not constitute “evidence” under the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) and that the first-instance court had not taken into account the evidence adduced before it, but based its decision solely on the evidence presented before the prosecutor, at the pre-trial phase of the proceedings. 16.  The prosecutor appealed in cassation, invoking essential factual errors in the Court of Appeal’s decision (Article 3859 § 18 of the CCP, see paragraph 19 below). He argued that the applicant’s first statements were corroborated by the evidence given by the witnesses for the prosecution, whereas the applicant’s wife and other witnesses for the defence were clearly biased and in any event their statements did not preclude the possibility that the applicant was the author of the crime. 17.  The High Court of Cassation and Justice held two hearings. It 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). In his address, the applicant endorsed his counsel’s position. 18.  The court quashed the previous decisions and proceeded to re‑examine the evidence in the file. It found that the applicant’s first statements, as well as the police report of 17 November 2005, had been lawfully admitted as evidence. It examined them in the light of the witness statements in the file and concluded that there was solid evidence that the applicant had been the driver of the car on the night of the accident and that the alcohol level in his blood had been above the legal limit at that time. For all these reasons, the High Court upheld the applicant’s conviction.
It rendered its decision on 20 February 2008.