PŘÍPLATA v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos
1. The applicant, Mr Frantisek Příplata, is a Czech national who was born in 1948 and lives in Uherske Hradiste, in the Czech Republic. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Strupek, a lawyer practising in Prague. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The Czech Government exercised their right under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention to intervene in the Court’s proceedings, and submitted written observations. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant is a Czech business man who had invested in Romania after 1990. As he was familiar with the Romanian business environment, he was empowered by a Czech company (“the company ZV”) to represent it in the process of the privatisation of the company S.C. Tepro S.A. (“Tepro”), which had its headquarters in Iași. The company ZV won the bid, which was managed by the State Property Fund (Fondul Proprietatea), and the contract for the transfer of shares was concluded on 21 July 1998. 5. The transfer of control of the company Tepro to company ZV was followed by the dismissal of many local employees. The privatization was strongly opposed by the workers’ trade union, Sindicatul Liber Tepro (“the SLT”) led by Mr S. (“the SLT leader”) who challenged the validity of the privatisation contract in court and organised strikes. 6. In June 2000, the applicant recommended to the Czech manager of company ZV the services of a company (“company P.”) for guarding and security services, headed by Mr C. (“the manager of company P.”). It was the same company which was providing similar security services to the applicant’s companies in Romania. 7. The terms of the contract between the two companies were discussed on 10 August 2000 at a hotel. All the Czech managers were present. A press conference was organized on that occasion. The applicant was present at a drinks reception after the press conference there; however, he denied that he had taken any part in a conversation between Mr Z. (“the manager of ZV”), the manager of company P., and Mr B. (“the manager of Tepro”) during which it was allegedly decided to eliminate the SLT leader. 8. The contract on provision of security services was signed by company P. and Tepro on 16 August 2000. 9. On 19 August 2000 an attempt by the manager of company P. and his employees to take over the security posts in Tepro was physically prevented by the SLT. According to the applicant, on that day the manager of company P. indicated to his employees that the SLT leader should be assaulted to prevent him from organising the workers of the SLT against the takeover of the security posts at Tepro. 10. On 20 August 2000 staff members of company P. succeeded in taking over Tepro’s security posts. However, the next day they were forced out again. 11. According to the prosecuting authorities, the manager of company P. gave B., S. and V. the address of the SLT leader so that he could be attacked. 12. B. invited his friend T. to take part in the assault. On 5 September 2000, he allegedly informed the manager of company P that he and T. had agreed to use a knife during the assault. The manager of company P. allegedly consented to the use of the knife, stating that the reward they had been promised would be doubled if the SLT leader was killed. 13. On 7 September 2000, at about 8 a.m., B. and T. attacked the SLT leader in the hallway of the building where he was living and caused him fatal injuries. He died shortly after being transported to hospital. 14. The perpetrators of the killing and the manager of company P. were arrested on 9 September 2000. They did not mention any involvement by the applicant in their initial statements. However, on 11 September 2000 the manager of company P. did mention that the applicant was involved in the attack. 15. The manager of Tepro was also arrested on 10 September 2000. On 18 September 2000 he gave a statement which began by mentioning the applicant’s involvement in the discussions which took place at the hotel on 10 August 2000. 16. Mr. P., a friend of the manager of company P., was heard as a witness on 20, 21, 22 and 28 September 2000. On 10 October 2000 he alleged that he had been present when a conversation took place between the manager of company P. and the applicant, during which the latter had allegedly told the former that the problems could be solved by the physical elimination of the SLT leader. 17. On 13 September 2000 the prosecutor began an investigation in respect of the applicant too, and instructed the police not to allow him to leave the country. 18. In the evening of 19 September 2000 the applicant was stopped at the Romanian border in Borș, while he was trying to leave the country. He was transported to Iași by police officers. He was questioned on arrival there. He pleaded not guilty and denied any involvement in the killing of the SLT leader. 19. The applicant was assisted by two lawyers of his choice during the investigation stage. 20. On 21 September 2000 the prosecutor in charge set up a confrontation between the applicant and the manager of company P. 21. On the same day the applicant was officially arrested and remanded in custody. 22. On 2 November 2000 the applicant was heard in connection with another charge against him concerning fraud in respect of public assets. 23. On 25 November 2000 the prosecutor filed with the Iași County Court an indictment of the applicant for fraud in respect of public assets, conspiracy to commit an offence, and incitement to aggravated homicide. The killers of the SLT leader and the managers of the companies P. and Tepro were also charged. 24. By a decision of 23 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice granted the applications of the applicant, the Czech embassy and the Ministry of Justice for the referral of the case from the Iași County Court to another court, because of the political pressure in Iași. The file was transferred to the Satu Mare County Court. 25. Initially the applicant was assisted by three lawyers of his choice. Starting from 4 September 2001 he was assisted by one lawyer of his choice, H.C. 26. On 5 February 2001 the Satu Mare County Court appointed a Czechlanguage interpreter (C.E.). The applicant requested the appointment of the same authorised interpreter used by the prosecutor during the investigation stage and the hearings before the Iași County Court. His request was refused on the ground that the cost would be too great since he resided in Iași. 27. On 3 April 2001 the court appointed a new authorised interpreter, G.I., on the ground that the applicant alleged that he had not understood the interpretation done by the previous one. He acted as the applicant’s interpreter at the subsequent hearings before the county court. 28. On 19 July 2001 the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant and the manager of Tepro against the interlocutory judgment on the extension of their pre-trial detention. It replaced their detention with an obligation not to leave their place of residence, and ordered their release. It also stated that the events as described in the indictment were not completely confirmed by the statements of the defendants and the witnesses heard before the court. The judgment had a dissenting opinion which stated that the extension of the detention was justified, as the grounds for taking the preventive measure had not changed. 29. After the applicant had been released from detention, workers of Tepro gathered in the streets of Iași protesting against the release. On 21 July 2001 the Prime Minister of the time attended one of these meetings and expressed support for the workers. He called the killing of the SLT leader a “political murder” and promised to ask the General Prosecutor to explain to the people of Iași why those considered by the citizens of Iași to be guilty of the murder were being prosecuted without being detained. 30. After two days, the decision to release the applicant was challenged by the General Prosecutor, who submitted a complaint of breach of law to the Supreme Court of Justice. He also ordered that the applicant be rearrested. 31. By an interlocutory judgment of 24 July 2001, the Satu Mare County Court ordered the suspension of the decision of the Oradea Court of Appeal of 19 July 2001 until the examination of the General Prosecutor’s complaint. It also ordered the re-arrest of the applicant and of the manager of Tepro and the extension of his detention 32. On 26 September 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal lodged by the General Prosecutor, and consequently the Satu Mare County Court replaced the detention of the applicant and of the manager of Tepro with an obligation not to leave their places of residence. They were released from prison. 33. On 27 July 2001, the Ministry of Justice applied to the Supreme Court of Justice for referral of the case to another court than the Satu Mare County Court. The request was justified by the wide media coverage of the case and its effect on public opinion. The Ministry stated that the request for the referral of the file to another court had been made at the insistence of the Czech embassy. The Czech embassy attended the hearing at the Supreme Court and contested that measure. The request of the Ministry of Justice was dismissed. 34. On 18 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned until 22 January 2002 because the applicant’s interpreter and part of the witnesses were absent. 35. At the hearing of 22 January 2002 the applicant and his lawyer consented to the hearing of three witnesses in the absence of the interpreter. Interpreter G.I. was present at the following hearings before the Satu Mare County Court. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer complained about the services provided by him during the proceedings before the Satu Mare County Court. 36. At the hearing of 12 March 2002, the applicant requested the hearing of four witnesses in his behalf. The Satu Mare County Court had granted the applicant’s request for the hearing of three witnesses, while it considered that the hearing of the fourth witness was not relevant as he had heard about the facts of the case from the applicant indirectly during their detention in the same cell. 37. By a judgment of 5 November 2002 the applicant was acquitted of the charge of fraud and found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime and of incitement to battery with fatal results (instigare la infracțiunea de lovituri cauzatoare de moarte). He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The court held that the applicant and the managers of the companies P. and Tepro had instructed the attackers only to cause the SLT leader injuries that would stop his activities in Tepro for a few weeks. It also held that the attackers had exceeded their instructions. The applicant’s conviction was based on evidence that comprised the statements of coaccused and witnesses whom he had had the opportunity to cross-examine in the presence of his lawyers. 38. The applicant, the other defendants and the prosecutor’s office all lodged appeals with the Oradea Court of Appeal. 39. In the appeal proceedings the applicant was assisted by two lawyers of his choice (one of them was the same lawyer who had assisted him before the Satu Mare County Court, H.C.). 40. At the first hearing before the appellate court the interpretation services were provided by the same interpreter as before the county court, G.I. On 8 May 2003 the appellate court ordered an adjournment of the hearings because the applicant’s lawyer required the services of another interpreter claiming that the applicant was not satisfied with the services provided by G.I. A new interpreter, R.P., was appointed for the hearing of 5 June 2003. 41. On 5 June 2003 the newly appointed interpret was absent. The court appointed another interpreter, D.M. from the list of authorized interpreters provided by the Ministry of Justice. The hearing was adjourned for 26 June 2003. 42. On 10 July 2003 the appelate court adjourned again the hearings at the request of D.M., who informed that she was abroad. 43. According to the applicant, at the hearing of 21 August 2003 the court had informed the applicant that the next hearing, scheduled for 10 September 2003, would take place in the absence of an interpreter if he did not secure one himself. In response to that statement the Czech embassy sent a note to the Supreme Court of Justice, which subsequently informed the appeal court that the services of an interpreter must be secured by the judicial authorities. The interlocutory judgment of 21 August 2003 did not contain such a statement. The hearings were adjourned at the request of one of the applicant’s lawyers. 44. The appellate court had difficulties in finding an available interpreter. It contacted by telephone most of the eleven interpreters found on the list provided by the Ministry of Justice and none was able to ensure interpretation services at the hearing of 10 September 2003. At that hearing the applicant did not accept the interpretation ensured by a person who knew Czech language, invited by the Czech Embassy to help the applicant. The court adjourned the hearings in order to find an authorized interpreter for the applicant. 45. At the last hearing before the appeal court, on 24 September 2003, the interpretation services were provided by an authorized interpreter, L.A. The applicant asked the court to allow more witnesses to be heard on his behalf, submitting a list of eight names in this respect. The list included the name of four Czech managers of Tepro, among whom were Z.Z. and the interpreters who had provided the service for the meeting held on 10 August 2001. The list also included witness R., who had shared a prison cell with the applicant. His request was refused, on the ground that the hearing of these new witnesses did not appear to be necessary at this stage of the proceedings. 46. By a decision of 8 October 2003 the Oradea Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Satu Mare County Court in part. It found the applicant guilty of fraud in respect of public assets, conspiracy to commit a crime, and incitement to aggravated murder. He was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment, with deprivation of civil rights for a period of five years. He was also ordered to pay a monthly allowance to the daughter of the victim until she reached the age of 25, provided that she continued her studies after reaching the age of majority. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the interpretation provided by A.L., which had been paid for by the Court of Appeal. 47. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision, submitting that Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention had been violated. In this respect he claimed that most of the written procedural acts had been delivered to him in the Romanian language, and that interpreting services at the Satu Mare County Court were provided by non-authorised interpreters who were not well understood by him. He also contended that he had been ordered to pay for the interpreting services provided by interpreter A.L. at the Oradea Court of Appeal. 48. He also complained that his right to defence had been infringed, because his request for further evidence made before the appellate court was dismissed without sufficient reasons. 49. Another complaint concerned lack of impartiality on the part of the domestic courts, because certain judges who had examined his appeal against the extension of his pre-trial detention had also examined the merits of the case. He referred in particular to Judge P.N. 50. In the proceedings before the High Court the interpretation services were ensured by two interpreters. The fees for interpretation were paid by the State. 51. The applicant was assisted before the High Court by the same two lawyers who had assisted him before the appellate court. 52. By a decision delivered on 2 June 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice quashed the decision of the Oradea Court of Appeal in part. It acquitted the applicant of the charge of fraud in respect of public assets, maintained the other two charges, and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment with five years’ deprivation of civil rights. It also rescinded the applicant’s obligation to pay the costs of interpretation provided at the Oradea Court of Appeal. 53. As regards the alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to an interpreter, the High Court held that from the examination of all interlocutory judgments it could be noted that no hearing had been held in the absence of an interpreter. Whenever the interpreter was absent the hearing was adjourned, and the court took all necessary steps to ensure the presence of an interpreter for the subsequent hearing. 54. As regards the applicant’s allegation that he could not understand the translation offered by the court-appointed interpreters because some of them were authorised to provide interpretation in the Slovak language and not in the Czech language, the High Court noted that according to the statements of A.C., a Romanian citizen of Slovak origin, the applicant had no difficulty in communicating with her. It also referred to B.G., who was hired as an interpreter at Tepro and also used as an interpreter at the meeting held on 10 August 2001. It noted that he was of Slovak origin too. The High Court further stated that “Whenever the applicant requested the replacement of the interpreters they were changed”. The court also noted that the applicant’s counsel had never complained before any court of difficulty in establishing proper communication with the applicant through the court-appointed interpreters. 55. As regards the applicant’s complaint about the dismissal by the Oradea Court of Appeal of his request for new evidence, the High Court noted that the Czech witness, Z.Z., had been summoned to be heard in different proceedings in connection with offences related to the applicant’s case, but he had not returned to Romania to be heard. The court also noted that taking into account his involvement in the applicant’s case it could not be expected that Z.Z. would give accurate statements. Moreover, there was enough evidence in the file attesting to the applicant’s involvement in the killing of S.V. The other three Czech managers indicated by the applicant in his list of witnesses were only involved in economic activities. As regards the statements by the two interpreters of Slovak origin, B.G. and A.C., who had attended the meeting 10 August 2001, the High Court noted that both of them had often provided interpretation to the Czech managers in their economic activity and were very much involved in profitable activities with the latter. Furthermore, A.C. was not only his business partner but also his life partner. The court concluded that their testimony in connection with the discussions held on 10 August 2001 could not be considered reliable, as both had provided interpreting services for the conversations held on that occasion. They could not acknowledge that they had thus become aware of the defendants’ intention to eliminate the leader of the SLT, because they could thereby have been held responsible for not preventing his killing. 56. For medical reasons the applicant was allowed to start serving his sentence on 7 September 2005. However, taking advantage of the lack of vigilance of the border authorities, he escaped from Romania to the Czech Republic in July 2005. 57. The Oradea District Court issued a European Arrest Warrant in his respect on 24 April 2008. By a decision of 9 October 2008 the Brno District Court refused to allow his extradition to Romania. 58. The Romanian Ministry of Justice requested the Czech Republic to take over the execution of the prison sentence. The Czech Ministry of Justice submitted, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Czech Code of Criminal Procedure, a request to the Brno District Court for approval of the Romanian courts’ decisions. 59. In the course of the proceedings before the Brno District Court there were three hearings. The court heard several witnesses, who included one of the applicant’s defence counsel before the Romanian courts, two employees of the Czech embassy in Romania, and the applicant’s interpreter and partner A.C. 60. By a judgment of 2 September 2009 the Brno District Court refused to approve the Romanian courts’ decisions, on the ground that the applicant had not benefitted from a fair trial in Romania. The main reason for the refusal was infringement by the Romanian court of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention, as the applicant had not been provided with the free assistance of an interpreter. 61. In accordance with Article 8 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), in force at the material time, parties who did not speak or did not understand the Romanian language, or who could not express themselves in it, were given the opportunity, free of charge, to acquaint themselves with the documents in the file, to speak in court and to submit conclusions, through the services of an interpreter and translator. 62. The Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States, transposed into Romanian law since 2004, has as main purpose to simplify and expedite procedures for extradition of persons convicted or accused of crimes between the EU member states.