European Court of Human Rights refuses request for advisory opinion from High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania

The European Court of Human Rights has refused the request for an advisory opinion (no. P16-2024-001) received from the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania (“the High Court”) on 27 February 2024. 

The request was submitted in the context of an appeal pending before the High Court, concerning the confiscation of a sum of money from a civil servant following an audit of her assets by the National Integrity Agency (Agenția Națională de Integritate – “the ANI”). 

The Romanian authorities had considered that the civil servant – who belonged to one of the 39 categories of individuals working in the public sector who were required to declare their assets and interests – had been unable to prove the source of the money, which had been confiscated following an audit of her income. 

The High Court requested the European Court to give an opinion on two questions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention. 

Having deliberated on 8 April and 18 June 2024, the Court decided not to accept the request for an advisory opinion, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, warranting examination by the Court’s Grand Chamber. It found that the Court’s case-law was well developed with regard to the questions asked, and several aspects of that case-law were judiciously cited by the requesting court in its decision to refer the matter to the Court.  

Protocol No. 16 allows the highest courts and tribunals, as specified by the member States that have ratified it, to request advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or its Protocols. Romania ratified Protocol No. 16 on 15 September 2022. This was the first request for an advisory opinion to have been submitted by one of the country’s highest courts and tribunals. (source:echr.coe.int/photo freepik.com)

Read the press release here

Read the decision here

Comments

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Gigantic fine for unfair practices imposed on Booking.com by the Competition Authority of Hungary

ECHR President: Covid-19 pandemic has raised a number of important human rights issues

The name Pablo Escobar may not be registered as an EU trade mark

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Airbnb is not required to hold an estate agent’s professional licence as it did not notify the Commission of that requirement in accordance with the Directive on electronic commerce