MUNTEANU v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano
1. The applicant, Mr Vladimir Munteanu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Cahul. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Iordachi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Moldovan Government, who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings, under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention, gave no indication that they wished to do so. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 30 August 2006 the applicant was charged, together with two Romanian citizens, with fraud, initiating and belonging to an organised crime group, forgery and money laundering. The prosecutor’s decision stated that the applicant had imported car tyres into Romania, and through several offshore companies and using falsified customs documents had avoided paying customs duties. 5. On 3 September 2006 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention for thirty days. The prosecutor requested an extension, but this was rejected by the Bucharest County Court on 27 September 2006. The court held that after the applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention, the prosecutor had not produced any new evidence to prove he was guilty of the crimes he had been charged with. 6. On 2 October 2006 the Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice imposed a preventive measure on the applicant, banning him from leaving Romania for thirty days so that the investigation into the above-mentioned crimes could continue. This preventive measure was extended on a monthly basis by decisions of the case prosecutor. 7. On 28 September 2007 the applicant complained to the Bucharest County Court about the prosecutor’s decision to extend the ban on him leaving Romania from 27 September until 26 October 2007. He applied to have the measure revoked, arguing that no new investigative steps had been taken by the prosecutors in the meantime, and that the measure taken against him had been extended automatically without taking into consideration his specific situation, namely that he was not a Romanian citizen and that his wife, two young children and parents all resided in Moldova and needed a visa to travel to Romania. The applicant also argued that extending the measure for more than one year would be contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. In the meantime, before a decision was taken on his complaint, the applicant was allowed by the prosecutor to leave Romania for twelve days to visit his sick father in Moldova. 9. On 15 January 2008 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that the prosecutor’s decision had not provided any new reasons to extend the preventive measure taken against the applicant. In addition, it held that the prosecutor had not proved there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crimes he had been charged with. The judgment became final on 21 January 2008, when an appeal by the prosecutor on points of law (recurs) was rejected by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 10. On that date the applicant was free to leave Romania and he returned to Moldova. 11. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the time are as follows: “(1) In cases concerning offences punishable with imprisonment, to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal trial or to prevent the suspect or defendant from fleeing during the criminal investigation, trial or ... execution of the sentence, one of the following preventive measures may be imposed: ... (b) a ban on leaving town; (c) a ban on leaving the country; ... (8) The measure to be taken shall be chosen taking into account its purpose, the severity of the crime, the health, age, [and any] previous convictions or other circumstances [of] the person on whom the measure is to be imposed.” “A person charged with an offence or a defendant may complain about a ... ban on leaving town or the country within three days of its adoption by the prosecutor ... “(2) ... A measure not to leave town may be extended in the course of the criminal investigation if necessary and only by a reasoned decision. The extension may be ordered by the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation, each not exceeding thirty days. The maximum duration of the measure provided for in paragraph (1) in the course of a criminal investigation is one year. Exceptionally, where the punishment is life imprisonment or detention of ten years or more, the maximum duration of the ban on leaving town may be two years.” “(2) The provisions of Article 145 also apply to bans on leaving the country.” 12. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code in force at the relevant time are as follows: “(5) Fraud which had very serious consequences shall be punished with 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment and the interdiction of certain rights.”