European Court of Human Rights

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 153

June 2012

Constantin Florea v. Romania - 21534/05

Judgment 19.6.2012 [Section III]

Article 6

Article 6-2

Presumption of innocence

Finding of guilt after expiration of limitation period: no violation

 

Facts - In 1996 the public prosecutor’s department opened an investigation against the applicant on charges of fraud, forgery and using forged official documents. In 2004 the first-instance court found that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged, but went on to discontinue the criminal proceedings after noting that the limitation period for all of the charges had expired in November 2003. As regards the civil aspect of the proceedings, it ordered the applicant to reimburse the State. The first-instance court’s judgment was upheld following an ordinary appeal and an appeal on points of law, on the grounds that it “had been established with certainty that the accused had committed the offences with which he was charged”.

Law - Article 6 § 2: Previous cases that had come before the Court had concerned cases in which appeal courts that had discontinued proceedings owing to the expiry of the limitation period had simultaneously overturned an acquittal by the lower court while ruling for the first time on the issue of guilt without respecting the rights of the defence in the proceedings before them. In the instant case, however, the first-instance court had considered the factual and legal aspects of the case and examined the question of the applicant’s criminal and civil guilt in its entirety. His criminal guilt had been established in proceedings which had not been found to be unfair within the meaning of the Convention and in which a failure to respect the rights of the defence had not been substantiated. As to the civil aspect of the case, the first-instance court had ruled on the civil claim and had made an order against the applicant after establishing that the constitutive elements of liability in tort were present. The first-instance court had given sufficient reasons for its order, which could not be considered arbitrary.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

The Court also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings.

Article 41: EUR 1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim for pecuniary damage dismissed.

 

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes