OPREA v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
András Sajó;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
1. The applicant, Mr Constantin Oprea, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr M.A. Tănăsescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms 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 4 March 2006, a dispute took place between the applicant and a neighbour regarding car parking. It happened in front of the building where they lived. The applicant alleged that B.C. hit him several times on the head and face with a solid object, leaving him unconscious for a few moments. 5. Helped by his son and wife, he returned to his house and immediately called the police. 6. The police officers, who immediately arrived on the scene, imposed a fine on both him and his neighbour for a public order infraction. 7. The infraction fine (proces-verbal de contravenţie) stated that it had been acknowledged by both parties involved in the incident that there had been a physical altercation between them. It had also mentioned that the applicant and B.C. had been advised to present themselves for a medical examination by the Bucharest forensic office. 8. The same day, after the police left, the applicant went to the closest hospital, Sfântu Ioan Emergency Hospital, for medical care. 9. On the medical certificate issued on 14 March 2006 by the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute, it was mentioned that the applicant presented with traumatic cuts and bruising that could have been caused by repeated blows from a hard object on 4 March 2006. According to the same certificate, the applicant needed at least seven to eight days of medical care to recover. 10. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against his aggressor for the offence of bodily harm under Article 180 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In turn, the defendant lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for intimidation, insult and defamation. The two files were joined and examined together. Both parties to the criminal trial also joined a civil complaint to the criminal one. Sfântu Ioan Emergency Hospital also lodged a civil claim. 11. The Bucharest District Court heard evidence from five witnesses proposed by the parties. None of the witnesses had been present at the incident of 4 March 2006 and consequently they stated that they were not aware of any physical altercation between the applicant and B.C. 12. By a judgment of 25 January 2007, the Bucharest District Court acquitted both defendants and dismissed the joint civil actions. The defendant indicated by the applicant in the criminal complaint was acquitted on the grounds that the applicant had not proved that he had caused the injuries. 13. The applicant appealed. He argued that the court of first instance had failed to investigate how the injuries attested by the medical certificate had been caused. He also claimed that the only eyewitness to the incident, O.M.M., although admitted as a witness and summoned by the court of first instance, had not had an opportunity to give evidence. The applicant did not indicate why this witness had not been heard. 14. By a decision of 27 April 2007 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law upholding the decision of 25 January 2007 on the grounds that the simple submission of a medical certificate to the court does not prove the guilt of t.e defendant. 15. The provisions of the Criminal Code, as in force on the date the offence was allegedly committed, defining bodily harm, read as follows: “Violence causing physical injuries needing medical care of up to twenty days for recovery is punishable by imprisonment of between three months and two years, or by a fine.”