European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> G.C.P. v Romania - 20899/03 [2009] ECHR 952 (2 June 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/952.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 952

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 20899/03
by G.C.P.
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra, judges,

and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr G.C.P. is a Romanian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Bucharest. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Voicu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

A. The criminal investigation against the applicant

1. On 10 April 1997 the applicant was charged with fraud, forging documents and use of forged documents, embezzlement, using the goods of a commercial company against its interests and undermining the national economy. The applicant, acting on behalf of the private company G.C.P. S.A. which he controlled as the major shareholder, had allegedly made false statements in an official document submitted to the Romanian National Bank on 31 August 1995 in order to obtain its permission to increase the social capital of a commercial bank (Bankcoop) by the amount of 10,000,000 US dollars (USD). More specifically, the applicant was suspected of declaring the above-mentioned amount as his personal income, when in fact it had been obtained as a loan by G.C.P. S.A. from a foreign bank, which was contrary to the National Bank’s regulations on the source of money used to increase the social capital of a bank.

2. During the investigation, nine witnesses were questioned and several accounting and financial expert reports were ordered by the prosecutors. In addition, on 8 April 1997 a search was conducted at the headquarters of G.C.P. S.A. and various accounting documents were temporarily confiscated by the prosecutors. No sequestration was instituted in respect of the goods of the company, which was able to continue its commercial activities during the investigation. Copies of various documents concerning the investigation were requested from Bankcoop, the Romanian National Bank and the foreign bank from which the loan had been obtained.

3. The investigation was conducted by two county-court level prosecutors who were temporarily seconded to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Justice by order of the Prosecutor General pursuant to Law no. 92/1992 on the organisation of the judicial system.

4. On 17 June 1999 the applicant was indicted for making false statements in an official document as he had not declared the true source of the money used for increasing the social capital of Bankcoop.

5. The investigation continued separately in respect of the charge of undermining the national economy. No information was provided by the applicant concerning the outcome of those proceedings. With respect to the rest of the charges the investigation was closed because the applicant’s actions were found to have been legal.

6. The indictment decision of 17 June 1999 mentioned that on 19 and 20 June 1997 the applicant had been partly informed of the charges against him but had subsequently left Romania in order to undergo medical treatment and had been hospitalised in the United States. Although the applicant’s attorney submitted a handwritten letter from the applicant informing the investigative authorities of his new address in the United States, the prosecutors decided not to take it into account as, according to the indictment decision, “[I]t could not be deduced from the content of the letter what the source of the information was or whether the defendant indeed lived at the given address.” Therefore, the two investigating prosecutors decided that, since the applicant had never presented himself before them in spite of their numerous summonses following 20 June 1997, he was avoiding the investigative authorities and concluded the investigation by sending the case before the court. The applicant’s attorney was, however, presented with the investigation file and informed of the charges against his client.

B. The criminal trial against the applicant

1. The trial before the first-instance court

7. On 16 September 1999, at the first hearing before the First Instance Court of the first district of Bucharest (Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti), the applicant’s son requested a postponement in order for the applicant to hire an attorney.

8. At the hearing of 21 October 1999, the applicant’s attorney submitted written evidence that the applicant was hospitalised in a clinic in the United States and requested a postponement in order for the court summons of the applicant to be sent to the clinic’s address.

9. At the hearings of 9 November and 14 December 1999, the applicant’s attorney complained that the applicant continued to be summoned at his Bucharest address and requested new hearings to be scheduled in order for the applicant to be summoned at the correct address abroad. A new hearing was scheduled by the court for 6 June 2000, in accordance with the procedural rules for serving of summonses outside Romania, which provide for a longer delay between hearings.

10. At the hearing of 6 June 2000 the applicant’s attorneys referred to various procedural errors in the summons sent to the applicant abroad. In addition, they raised an objection concerning the unconstitutionality of Article 177 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the different rules applied to service of summonses on persons living abroad compared to those sent to persons in Romania. Therefore, according to the minutes of 13 June 2000, the file was sent to the Constitutional Court for decision. On 12 October 2000, the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint and found that the provisions of Article 177 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were in conformity with the Constitution, as in the field of service of summonses different rules applied to persons in different situations.

11. At the hearing of 12 December 2000, due to a procedural error in the summons, the court scheduled a new hearing for 29 January 2001. On 29 January 2001, the applicant informed the court in writing that he was unable to be present at the hearing as he was hospitalised, and requested another hearing to be set. The request was granted by the court.

12. At the subsequent hearing on 6 March 2001 the applicant’s attorneys submitted a letter from the applicant’s doctor stating he was still in need of medical treatment and could not be discharged from hospital and requested a new hearing to be set. A new hearing was set by the court for 4 September 2001, in accordance with the procedural rules for service of summonses outside Romania.

13. On 4 September 2001, at the final hearing on the merits of the case, the applicant’s attorneys submitted written notes declaring that the applicant had neither been informed of the charges against him nor presented with the investigation file and requesting the annulment of the indictment and the referral of the case back to the prosecutor in accordance with the provisions of Articles 197 § 2 and 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

14. By a judgement of 11 September 2001 the First Instance Court of the first district of Bucharest decided that the indictment of 17 June 1999 was null since the applicant had not been informed of the charges against him and ordered the file to be sent back to the prosecutor’s office.

2. The prosecutor’s appeal

15. The prosecutor submitted an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 11 September 2001.

16. At the first hearing before the Bucharest County Court (Tribunalul Bucureşti), on 21 November 2001, the applicant requested a postponement as he was not able to appear in court because he was still hospitalised in a clinic in the United States.

17. At the hearing of 12 December 2001, due to a procedural error, the court scheduled another hearing for 9 January 2002.

18. By a judgment of 18 January 2002 the prosecutor’s appeal was granted, as there were no reasons for the annulment of the indictment, since the decision of the investigative prosecutors to send the case before the court without informing the applicant of the charges against him had been in accordance with the legal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to persons avoiding the investigative authorities. In reaching this decision the court took into account the fact that neither the applicant nor his attorney had provided the investigators with an exact address at which the applicant could be summoned during the investigation. Therefore, the Bucharest County Court sent the case back to the first-instance court for a retrial on the merits.

3. The retrial before the first-instance court

19. On 13 May 2002 the first hearing was held in the retrial of the case before the First Instance Court of the first district of Bucharest. The applicant was present before the court and his statement was taken. The applicant mentioned, inter alia, that the criminal investigation against him had been based on political motives, a fact which could be confirmed by the negative media campaign conducted against him. A new hearing was set for 3 June 2002 in order for the witnesses to be heard before the court.

20. On 3 June 2002 two of the prosecution witnesses were heard. The prosecutor decided not to proceed with the questioning of the witnesses who had failed to appear before the court. The pronouncement of the judgment was postponed by the court for fourteen days as more time was needed for deliberations.

21. By a judgment of 17 June 2002 the First Instance Court of the first district of Bucharest acquitted the applicant because from all the evidence produced it emerged that his actions had been in accordance with the law.

4. The prosecutor’s second appeal

22. The prosecutor appealed against the judgment of 17 June 2002 and the first hearing before the Bucharest County Court was set for 27 September 2002. The applicant requested in writing a new date for a hearing as he did not have time to hire an attorney. His request was allowed and the court set the new hearing for 25 October 2002.

23. On 25 October 2002 the applicant’s appointed attorney requested a postponement of the hearing as he could not be present before the court due to medical reasons.

24. At the final hearing of 1 November 2002 the applicant was present and was given the last word pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

25. On 14 November 2002 the appeal was allowed and the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant of making false statements in an official document and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment, a sentence which was considered pardoned according to the law.

5. The applicant’s appeal on points of law

26. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 14 November 2002. The first hearing was set for 9 December 2002 before the Bucharest Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel Bucureşti). By a letter of 6 December 2002, the applicant’s son informed the court that the applicant was still abroad, that he wished to attend the trial and requested a new hearing as he had not had time to hire an attorney. The request was allowed by the court and a new hearing was set for 16 December 2002.

27. On 16 December 2002 the applicant’s appointed attorney could not be present in court due to medical reasons and requested a postponement of the hearing. The request was allowed.

28. A new hearing was held on 20 December 2002, at which the applicant and his attorney were heard by the court. The applicant again asked the court to send the file back to the prosecutor’s office, submitting written notes as well as a copy of a final judgment of 25 June 2001 by which the First Instance Court of the first district of Bucharest had sent another criminal file concerning him back to the prosecutor’s office for the same reason.

29. By a final judgment of 23 December 2002 the applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected by the Bucharest Court of Appeal and his conviction became final.

30. The applicant made no complaints before the courts either with respect to any commercial losses his company might have made due to the length of the criminal investigation and the trial against him or with respect to any additional procedural errors which might have occurred during the criminal investigation.

C. The statements made by the public officials and the media campaign against the applicant

31. In the course of 1997, during the criminal investigation conducted against the applicant, several public officials made statements about the applicant’s case which were published in several national newspapers.

32. Thus, on 19 February 1997, the Adevărul daily newspaper published an article entitled “The investigation files of G.C.P. – strictly secret?” The article quoted statements by D.I.C., one of the prosecutors conducting the investigation against the applicant, of which the most relevant part reads as follows:

“We have been accused of insisting on imposing [on G.C.P.] an order not to leave the city, a measure which is usually taken when there are suspicions that somebody has committed a crime. However, as I already told you and as results from checks carried out by the Financial Control Office [Garda Financiară], here there are crimes committed, not only suspicions.”

33. On 2 July 1997, the Naţional daily newspaper published an article entitled “G.D. states that G.C.P. should have been indicted long ago for two of the proven crimes”. The most relevant part of the article, which quoted statements by G.D., the Minister of Interior at the time, reads as follows:

“G.C.P. could be indicted for two already proven crimes, namely the ones connected to the embezzlement through Bancorex, from Chemical Bank to Bankcoop. The 10 million dollars taken by G.C.P. from Chemical Bank for a factory in Arad were embezzled so that he could take over the majority of shares from Bankcoop. (...) Although there is proof that several crimes have been committed by G.C.P., he is only under investigation for two, and the prosecutor’s investigation is lasting a suspiciously long time.”

34. On 3 July 1997, the Evenimentul Zilei daily newspaper published an article entitled “G.C.P. and R.T. accused of undermining the national economy”. Quoting the same prosecutor, D.I.C., the relevant parts of the article read as follows:

“On 1 July 1997 in file no. 180/P/97 of the General Prosecutor’s Office, the file concerning the defendant G.C.P., the criminal investigation was extended with respect to the crime of undermining the national economy punishable under Article
165 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Hence, between 1994 and 1997, he used a
state-owned public interest bank, Bancorex S.A., in order to obtain certain financial facilities in the amount of 202.6 million dollars to be used for the reimbursement of certain loans contracted by his commercial company, G.C.P. S.A. This undermined the national economy and disturbed the activity of Bancorex S.A. and, as a consequence, the national economy.”

35. On 19 December 1997, the Evenimentul Zilei published an article entitled “S.M. found overseas the solution for destroying the mafia in Romania: The Mexicans should come with bazookas”. The article quoted statements made by S.M., the Prosecutor General of Romania at the time. The most relevant part reads as follows:

“In the case of G.C.P., who knew all about financial tricks [ingineriile financiare] and covered his tracks with lots of documents, the experts’ report is not finished yet. I believe that there is a 99% chance that he will also be sent to trial, but I would make a suggestion to the police to not just stick to the small cases of T. and G.C.P., because the two of them have [done] more than this.”

36. In addition, the applicant submits that a total of around 350 articles containing information on the investigation and the trial against him were published between 1997 and 2000 in all the major national newspapers, including Ziua, Adevărul, Evenimentul Zilei, Cotidianul, Naţional and Libertatea. Some of the most relevant titles quoted by the applicant in this respect, read as follows: “The trap is tightening” (Evenimentul Zilei, 17 March 1997), “Chess at millionaires!” (Evenimentul Zilei, 9 April 1997), “The return of the jackals” (Evenimentul Zilei, 18 August 1997), “Sharks at large” (Evenimentul Zilei, 28 April 1998), “Just when the prosecutors were on the point of indicting him, G.C.P. found refuge in a hospital in Switzerland” (Adevărul, 12 March 1999) or “G.P. ran away in the U.S.A.” (Libertatea, 5 October 1999).

COMPLAINTS

37. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal trial against him had been unfair and complained about its outcome. More specifically, he alleged the wrong assessment of the evidence and the unfair judicial framing of his actions by the prosecutors and the domestic courts. The applicant also complained under this article that two of the prosecutors who conducted the investigation against him had lacked legal competence, since they were seconded to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Justice from a lower level prosecutor’s office.

38. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a lack of independence from the executive of Romanian prosecutors in general and of the prosecutors who were investigating his case.

39. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. In this respect he complained that the proceedings lasted a total of five years, eight months and fourteen days, of which the prosecutors’ investigation lasted two years, two months and seven days and the court trial lasted three years, six months and seven days before five courts and three levels of jurisdiction.

40. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonably short length of the final stage of the trial against him, the appeal on points of law, which lasted for only fifteen days. In this respect, he also complained of not having enough time for the preparation of his defence, in breach of Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention.

41. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 that his right to the presumption of innocence had been breached by the negative media campaign conducted against him as well as the statements made during the investigation by one of the investigating prosecutors as well as by the Prosecutor General and the Minister of the Interior.

42. Invoking Article 6 § 3 (a) the applicant complained that he had not been informed of the charges against him at the conclusion of the prosecutors’ investigation.

43. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had no available effective domestic remedy with respect to the unreasonable length of the proceedings.

44. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings against him his company, G.C.P. S.A., had suffered financial losses.

THE LAW

A. Complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention

45. The applicant complained of the unfairness and the outcome of the criminal trial against him, alleging the wrong assessment of the evidence and the unfair judicial framing of his actions by the prosecutors and the domestic courts in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Invoking the same article, the applicant also complained that two of the prosecutors who conducted the investigation against him lacked legal competence, since they were seconded to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Justice from a lower level prosecutor’s office. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 reads as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

With respect to the applicant’s complaint concerning the wrong assessment of the evidence and the unfair judicial framing of his actions by the prosecutors and the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, 30544/96, § 28, 21 January 1999). In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court notes that the applicant had the benefit of adversarial proceedings and at the various stages of the proceedings he was able to submit the arguments he considered relevant to his case. In conclusion, the Court finds that nothing in the file discloses any appearance of arbitrariness or an infringement of the guarantees set out in the Convention or its Protocols and declares this complaint manifestly ill founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention

Concerning the applicant’s complaint that two of the prosecutors who conducted the investigation against him lacked legal competence, it appears from the file that neither the applicant nor his lawyers raised this complaint, even in substance, at any stage of the proceedings. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

46. Invoking Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 reads as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Court recalls that in criminal matters, the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is “charged”. Therefore, in the present case, the Court considers the proceedings in question to have commenced with the decision to charge the applicant on 10 April 1997 and to have ended with the final judgment of 23 December 2002. The period to be taken into consideration is thus five years, eight months and fourteen days including the criminal investigation and the trial before five courts and three levels of jurisdiction.

According to the Court’s case-law, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the authorities dealing with the case (see Gelli v. Italy, no. 37752/97, § 40, 19 October 1999, unreported, and Pélissier and Sassi v. France, no. 25444/94, § 67, 25 March 1999).

In the present case, the Court firstly notes that the criminal investigation had a high level of complexity, the applicant being initially charged with several serious crimes such as fraud, embezzlement and undermining the national economy. Furthermore, on the basis of the documents in the file, the Court has not noted any periods of unjustified inactivity which were attributable to the authorities during the criminal investigation which lasted two years, two months and seven days. Moreover, in the Court’s view regard must be had to the fact that, in spite of the numerous summonses, the applicant, who left the country shortly after the beginning of the investigation, did not present himself before the prosecuting authorities, thus depriving the investigators of his statement and obliging them to collect evidence entirely from other sources. With respect to the court trial, which lasted three years, six months and seven days, regard must be had to one of the relevant criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, that is, the conduct of the applicant. In this respect, while the applicant cannot be blamed for using the avenues provided by law in order to obtain the postponement of the trial, it must be noted that most of the delays during the court proceedings in the present case were caused by the applicant’s conduct. Accordingly, on the basis of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant or his attorneys requested eleven postponements, which delayed the court proceedings for a total of two years. As for the conduct of the authorities, the Court again notes that, according to the file, no particular unjustified delays are attributable to the domestic courts and the allocation of longer periods between the hearings was due to the applicant’s request to be summoned abroad and therefore to the application of the relevant legal provisions.

In the light of all the material in its possession and notwithstanding what was at stake for the applicant, the Court finds that the length of the proceedings was not excessive and therefore this complaint is manifestly ill founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

47. The applicant further complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that the length of the final stage of the trial against him, the appeal on points of law which lasted for only fifteen days, was unreasonably short. In this respect, the applicant complained that he did not have enough time for the preparation of his defence. In addition, the applicant complained that he was not informed of the charges against him at the conclusion of the prosecutors’ investigation, in breach of Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

The relevant parts of Article 6 § 3 provide as follows:

“3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.”

As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together since they amount to a complaint that the applicant did not receive a fair trial (see, among other authorities, Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, § 29).

Concerning the length of the final stage of the applicant’s trial, the Court notes that, in deciding on an appeal on points of law, the domestic courts are not obliged to re-examine the evidence, the applicant benefited from two postponements in order to prepare his defence, he submitted written notes and he was also heard by the court but raised no new issues in his defence. Therefore, in light of the above, the Court finds the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (b) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

With respect to the applicant’s complaint that he was not informed of the charges against him at the conclusion of the prosecutors’ investigation it must be noted that the Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 14967/89, § 44, 19 February 1998). Therefore, this complaint will be analysed under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention which guarantees the accused “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”. Furthermore, the facilities which should be enjoyed by everyone charged with a criminal offence include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 84, 15 November 2007). In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was out of the country for the entire period of the criminal investigation. Nevertheless, his attorney had access to the investigation file during the entire investigation and was informed of the charges against the applicant at the conclusion of the investigation. In addition, the applicant was able to take note of the indictment and the rest of the investigation file personally before the domestic court at the hearing of 13 May 2002 when he returned to Romania. Moreover, following the criminal investigation the applicant had access to an independent tribunal which analysed in an adversarial manner this complaint together with the supporting documents submitted by the applicant and decided on two occasions that it was not well-founded. Therefore, the Court finds this complaint is manifestly ill founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

B. Complaints under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

48. The applicant complained that his right to the presumption of innocence had been breached by the media campaign and the statements made against him during the investigation by one of the investigating prosecutors as well as by the Prosecutor General and the Minister of the Interior contrary to the provisions of Article 6 § 2 which reads as follows:

“2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

C. Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention

49. The applicant complained of a lack of a domestic remedy with respect to his complaint concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Court reiterates that Article 13 has been interpreted as only requiring a domestic remedy for complaints that may be considered “arguable” under the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 9658/82 and 9659/82, § 52, 21 June 1988).

Having regard to its aforementioned findings concerning the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court holds that the applicant does not have an arguable complaint under Article 13. It follows that this complaint must also be dismissed as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

D. Complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

50. The applicant finally complained that due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings against him, G.C.P. S.A., the company which he controlled as the major shareholder, suffered financial losses in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which provides as follows in its relevant part:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”

The Court notes that, according to the criminal investigation file, the property of the G.C.P. S.A. was not sequestrated and the company was not impeded from continuing its activity. Furthermore, the Court observes that the applicant could not produce any evidence to substantiate his allegations of an infringement of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the breach of his right to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Stanley Naismith Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President