Property confiscation of a businessman and former politician resulting from criminal acts. Non-violation of the ECHR

JUDGMENT

Voiculescu v. Romania (app. no.  493/15) and
Camelia Rodica Voiculescu v. Romania and 3 other applications (app. no. 502/15)  17.03.2022

SUMMARY

The plaintiff in the first case, Dan Voiculescu, is a Romanian national. The applicants in the second case are two Romanian nationals and two Romanian companies. The first applicant is the father of the other two applicants and the owner of the two applicant companies. He is a prominent businessman and former politician. On several occasions, as the leader of a political party, he made critical statements to the media, including about the President of Romania.

Following an investigation into corruption, the applicant was finally convicted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal of money laundering in 2014. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, with a decision that had an extensive and sufficient reason. Following his first-instance conviction in 2013, the Bucharest District Court ordered the confiscation of money he had given to his daughters, and the prosecutor ordered the confiscation of the property of all the applicants in the second case. By decision of the appellate court, the seizures were extended on the grounds that this property was the product of criminal acts.

Referring in particular to Articles 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and 18 (limits on the use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol (protection of property) of the ECHR, the applicant complained, in particular, that the State had    prosecuted him for political purposes.

Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 7 (no penalty without law) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), the other applicants complained that the composition of the court which had ordered the seizure of their assets was not impartial, that the seizure had no legal basis and that the sentence of the seizure had not been reviewed by a higher court.

The Court, considering the applications and referring to all the articles in question in the Convention, dismissed both applications as inadmissible and / or unfounded.

PROVISIONS

Article 6 par. 1

Article 6 par. 2

Article 7

Article 18

Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol

Article 2 of the 7th Additional Protocol

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicant in the first case, Dan Voiculescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1946 and
lives in Bucharest.

The applicants in the second case are two Romanian nationals, Camelia Rodica Voiculescu and
Corina Mirela Voiculescu, and two Romanian companies, Compania de Cercetări Aplicative și
Investiții S.A. and Grupul Industrial Voiculescu și Compania S.A. The first two applicants were born in
1974 and 1975 and live in Petrești (Romania) and Bucharest respectively. The applicant companies
are based in Bucharest.

Dan Voiculescu is the father of the other two applicants and the owner of the two applicant
companies. He is a prominent businessman and former politician. On several occasions, as the leader
of a political party, he made statements in the media which were critical of, among others, the
President of Romania. Allegedly, in 2014 the President of Romania stated the following regarding
Mr Voiculescu’s upcoming trial:

“It is not right, and especially the anticipation that everyone is expecting a conviction. It could very
well be an acquittal. I don’t know. It can be anything. The judge is the only one who has all the
elements to decide.”

Following an investigation for corruption, Mr Voiculescu was finally convicted by the Bucharest Court
of Appeal of money laundering in 2014. He received a ten-year prison sentence. The judgment was
extensively and thoroughly reasoned, based on copious evidence, and included replies to all
arguments raised by the parties. During the trial, Mr Voiculescu lodged many unsuccessful
applications to have judges removed from the panel for bias.

Following his first-instance conviction in 2013 by the Bucharest County Court, that court ordered the
seizure of money given by him to his daughters, and the prosecutor ordered the seizure of property
from all the applicants in the second case. The appellate court then expanded the seizures. It
reasoned that prevention of damage to or hiding of property made this measure necessary, and that
the property was the proceeds of crime.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT…

Article 6 § 2 (first application)

Regarding the statement by the President of Romania and the allegation that this had damaged the
presumption of innocence in Mr Voiculescu’s case, the Court determined that this alleged statement
had not implied guilt on the part of the latter. There were therefore no grounds to believe that the
impartiality of the trial had been in question.

This complaint was thus rejected as manifestly ill-founded.

Article 18 (first application)

The Court reiterated that the mere fact that a politician was criminally prosecuted, even during an
electoral campaign, was not automatically a breach of the right to run for office. Concerning
statements by officials, these would only carry weight if the trial court were not independent, for
which there was no evidence in this case. Regarding the independence of the trial courts, the Court
noted that the proceedings had not been arbitrary, Mr Voiculescu had been afforded reasonable
opportunities to put forward his arguments in adversarial proceedings and the decisions adopted
had been thoroughly reasoned on the basis of the facts and the applicable law.

Overall, there appeared to be no evidence that the authorities had conducted the trial for ulterior
reasons, leading the Court to reject the complaint as manifestly ill-founded.

Other articles (first application)

The other complaints made by Mr Voiculescu did not meet the admissibility requirements of the
Court and were thus rejected.

Article 6 § 1 (second application)

The Court noted that the applicants had challenged domestic-court judges on the bench which
ordered the seizures for bias and received reasoned responses. There was no appearance of any lack
of impartiality on the part of the judges on the bench in their case. The complaint was rejected as
manifestly ill-founded.

Article 7 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (second application)

Within the meaning of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention, a “penalty” is something imposed following
conviction for a “criminal offence”. It was clear that the seizures had not been connected with any criminal offences on the part of the applicants in the second application. These provisions of the  Convention were not therefore applicable, and the complaint was rejected by the Court.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (second application)

The Court was satisfied that the control of the use of property in this case had been in the general
interest of the community as it had been held to be the proceeds of crime. The applicants had been
able to challenge the orders in court and to make their case.

The complaint was thus manifestly ill-founded and was rejected by the Court in accordance with its
well-established case-law (Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15).