DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicant, Mr Adrian Dragomir, is a Romanian national who was born in 1989 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Ms E. R. Iancu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 25 November 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and eight other co-accused in respect of fraud, forgery, use of forged documents, and money-laundering offences. 5. On 26 November 2010 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. An arrest warrant was issued against the applicant and the prosecutor’s order was confirmed by the court. 6. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended on successive occasions by court order. 7. On 8 April 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the court requesting revocation of the order for his detention. In an interlocutory judgment of 12 April 2011, the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant’s request. However, it replaced the applicant’s detention with an undertaking not to leave the city, given that the impact of his deeds on public order had diminished with the passage of time. It ordered the applicant’s release from detention. 8. The prosecutor did not appeal against the interlocutory judgment. Despite the fact that the judgment became final on 13 April 2011, the applicant was not released from Bucharest Prison until two days later, namely on 15 April 2011. 9. The relevant provisions of domestic law and practice regarding the award of compensation in the event of unlawful detention – namely Articles 504 and 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and decision no. 45/1998 of the Constitutional Court – are to be found in Ogică v. Romania, no. 24708/03, § 56, 27 May 2010, and Degeratu v. Romania, no. 35104/02, § 59, 6 July 2010. 10. The Government submitted examples of case-law with the aim of showing that at present, in similar cases concerning unlawful detention, the system of legal remedies in Romania – including the direct applicability of the Convention and the Romanian Constitution – made it possible to make good any damage suffered. 11. In a judgment of 2 March 2007 concerning an unlawful detention for two days, the Mehedinți County Court allowed the action for compensation and awarded the claimant 1,000 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 350 euros (EUR)). The Craiova Court of Appeal upheld that judgment and increased the compensation to RON 2,000 (approximately EUR 700). The appellate court held that, although Article 504 of the CCP was not applicable to the claimant’s situation, Article 23 and Article 52 § 3 of the Romanian Constitution and Article 5 of the Convention were applicable. 12. In another case, in a final decision of 13 June 2012 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed a tort action and awarded the claimant EUR 500 as compensation for an unlawful detention lasting twenty-two days. It held that – although Article 504 of the CCP was not applicable to the claimant’s situation – the claimant was entitled to compensation for unlawful detention. 13. In a judgment of 18 February 2010 the Vâlcea County Court awarded the claimant RON 30,000 (approximately EUR 7,400) by way of compensation for thirty-six days of unlawful detention. On 4 May 2012 the High Court of Cassation and Justice upheld that judgment. It noted that the claimant was entitled to compensation on the basis of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, even though the extension of his detention by an additional thirty-six days after his prison sentence had been served had not been found unlawful by a decision of a prosecutor or a court, as required by Article 504 § 3 of the CCP. 14. By a decision of 17 March 2011 the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed an action for compensation for unlawful detention and awarded the claimant RON 500. It found that, although Article 504 of the CCP was not applicable to the claimant’s situation, he was entitled to compensation on the basis of Article 5 of the Convention. That decision became final on 6 March 2012, when the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed an appeal on points of law against it.