MUREŞAN v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicant, Mr Dănuț Augustin Mureşan, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Oradea. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Doseanu, a lawyer practising in Oradea. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. At the relevant time the applicant, a career military officer (a major), was the liaison person in charge of supervising and approving works being undertaken for the renovation and modernisation of his military base. 5. On 28 April 2004 the military branch of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office committed the applicant for trial on several counts of corruption concerning public tenders. B.V., a civilian, was also indicted by the prosecutor for bribing the applicant. The prosecutors in charge of the indictment were career officers: a colonel-magistrate and a captainmagistrate. B.V. failed to appear in court throughout the proceedings. The summons had been sent to an address in Romania of which his counsel had informed the courts. However, according to information received by the courts from the authorities, B.V. was living in the United States of America (“the USA”) at that time. 6. The Bucharest Regional Military Tribunal, sitting in a panel composed of two colonel-magistrates, examined the case as a firstinstance court. It heard testimony from witnesses for the prosecution and allowed two witnesses for the defence to be called. However, those two witnesses failed to appear. The applicant gave statements before the court. 7. On 10 September 2004 the Military Tribunal found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a suspended sentence of three years and six months. 8. The parties appealed. The applicant maintained his innocence and argued that the first-instance court had made an incorrect interpretation of the evidence in the file. 9. The Bucharest Military Court of Appeal, sitting in a panel composed of two colonel-magistrates, gave judgment on 3 May 2005. In an extensively reasoned decision it dismissed the appeals and upheld the firstinstance judgment. 10. The parties appealed on points of law. The applicant reiterated the representations he had made in the appeal proceedings, and in addition argued that B.V. should be summoned at his address in the USA and questioned by the court, as his statements could have an influence on the applicant’s situation. 11. In a final decision of 15 March 2006 the criminal section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant, as it considered that the lower courts had correctly established the facts of the case and classified the crimes in law. It reiterated the arguments advanced by the Military Court of Appeal concerning the claims raised by the applicant in his previous appeal. It also considered that the evidence in the file was sufficient to secure the applicant’s conviction and that there were no doubts that could have been clarified by statements from B.V. The High Court allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor’s office and ordered that the applicant serve his sentence in detention.