6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Toronto (Canada). 7.  The applicant retired from her position as director of a private refinery in March 2002. In April 2002 she left Romania for the United States. On 18 and 22 July 2002, while she was away from Romania, summons were sent to her home address, instructing her to present herself at the Police Inspectorate for questioning. 8.  As she did not comply with the summons, on 25 July 2002 the prosecutor attached to the Prahova Court of Appeal issued a pre‑trial arrest warrant, valid for thirty days, for abuse of office and incitement to forgery. The reasoning in the arrest warrant stated: “the accused is absconding, the sentence provided by law for the alleged crime is a prison sentence of longer than two years and her release would disturb public order.” On 2 August 2002 an international arrest warrant was issued against her. 9.  The applicant remained outside Romania but contested the legality of the arrest warrant through her legal representative. 10.  On 26 August 2002 her first complaint was lodged. By an interlocutory judgment of 28 August 2002 the Prahova County Court dismissed the complaint, stating in part:
“As may be noted, the pre-trial detention of the accused was ordered because of the commission of crimes giving rise to significant public danger, given that the accused had concluded a contract for the sale of oil products at a price that was disadvantageous to the company managed by her and which caused that company a loss of over sixty-three billion lei, actions which created within the public community a sense of indignation and disapproval, as these crimes received extensive media coverage.” 11.  On 27 September 2002 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment, holding that it was clear from the criminal investigation file that there were strong indications that the accused had committed the crimes which had led to inception of the criminal proceedings and the issue of the arrest warrant. 12.  Several other similar complaints were dismissed in 2003. 13.  On 11 November 2003 the Braşov County Court concluded that the arrest warrant had been issued unlawfully. The following reasons were put forward: the accused had left Romania in April 2002, prior to the inception of the criminal proceedings against her in July 2002; at that time, therefore, she had been free to leave the country and the fact that she had exercised her right to freedom of movement could not be interpreted as an intention to abscond. On an appeal by the prosecutor, the Braşov Court of Appeal, by a final decision of 18 November 2003, quashed that judgment and confirmed the legality of the warrant, holding that the applicant had tried to abscond from the proceedings. 14.  Further complaints by the applicant were dismissed by an interlocutory judgment of 3 February 2004, as confirmed by a final decision of the Braşov Court of Appeal delivered on 13 February 2004, and by a final decision of 17 January 2005. In the interlocutory judgment of 3 February 2004, the Braşov County Court indicated that there were reasonable suspicions that the applicant had committed the alleged offences and the arrest warrant was valid, since, although she was aware of the proceedings against her, the applicant had chosen not to return to Romania. The final decision of 13 February 2004 states: “releasing the applicant would give rise to a real danger to public order, given the method and circumstances in which the acts were committed, the effective contribution of each person and the consequences and social resonance which such acts create among the public.” 15.  On 3 May 2005 the Braşov County Court ordered the quashing of all procedural decisions taken in the framework of these investigations, including the contested arrest warrant. Nevertheless, on an appeal by the prosecutor, by a final decision of the Braşov Court of Appeal of 6 March 2006 the validity of the arrest warrant was again confirmed. The appellate court held that, given that the applicant had been absconding throughout the proceedings, she could not be treated on an equal basis with the other accused persons in the same proceedings who had already been held in pre-trial detention. 16.  On 22 August 2007 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s request to have the arrest warrant revoked. It considered that the measure was no longer justified, given that it had been ordered five years previously, three months after the applicant had left the country. The county court considered that the state of the proceedings, still under investigation by the prosecutor, and the lack of any evidence regarding any danger the applicant might pose to the public justified revoking the arrest warrant. On an appeal by the prosecutor, the Bucharest Court of Appeal (with one dissident opinion), by a final decision of 3 September 2007, reversed that decision and once again confirmed the legality of the warrant. It noted that the warrant had never been executed, given the applicant’s absence, and decided that the reasons which had justified its issue in 2002 were still valid. 17.  Following the start of the criminal investigation against the applicant and other co-accused on different dates during 2002, on 20 March 2003 the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice issued an indictment against twelve persons, including the applicant, for various offences of fraud related to trade in oil products. The file was first registered with the Prahova County Court. 18.  Later the file was assigned to the Bacău County Court and subsequently to the Braşov County Court, by virtue of final decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice of 9 May and 11 September 2003 respectively, in response to requests by the accused for removal of jurisdiction from the competent courts for alleged bias. 19.  Following the transfer of the file to Braşov County Court, in various hearings held up to April 2004 statements were taken from all the accused, except the applicant, who was still absent but was represented by a lawyer chosen by her. 20.  By a decision of 3 May 2005 the county court referred the case back to the prosecutor. It considered that the criminal investigation had been marred by procedural irregularities and that it should be carried out again and completed in compliance with all procedural requirements. The decision was partly upheld by the Braşov Court of Appeal on 6 March 2006, thus dismissing the prosecutor’s appeal against the remittal order. 21.  The case was referred to the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism. By a decision of 18 April 2006, it relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the National Anti‑Corruption Directorate. 22.  On 4 April 2008 a new bill of indictment was drafted. The applicant was charged with tax evasion, forgery of private documents and the association for the commission of offences. 23.  The file was registered with the Ploieşti District Court. On 3 March 2009 the court relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Braşov District Court. On 19 November 2009 the latter court held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case. By a judgment of 8 February 2010, the High Court of Cassation and Justice examined the conflict of jurisdiction and concluded that the competent court was the Braşov District Court. 24.  The proceedings are still pending before the first‑instance court.