issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 064 (2023)
28.02.2023
Judgments of 28 February 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of two Chamber
judgments1 which are summarised below;
These judgments are available only in English.
Căpăţînă v. Romania (application no. 911/16)
The applicant, Daniela Căpăţînă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Rădăuţi
(Romania).
In 2011 criminal proceedings were opened against over 60 border police officers and customs
officers, including the applicant, on suspicion of organised crime and bribe-taking. They were
accused of trafficking in cigarettes, diesel and alcohol from Ukraine. The applicant was ultimately
convicted and given a two-year suspended prison sentence. The case concerns the seizure,
confiscation and subsequent return of some of her assets during the criminal proceedings.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on
Human Rights, the applicant complains in particular that the sums seized from her were
disproportionately high, alleges that she provided evidence that the assets had been lawfully
obtained and contests the method used to calculate the proceeds of crime confiscated from her
following her criminal conviction.
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Stoenescu v. Romania (no. 14166/19)
The applicant, Vlad Stoenescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest.
Following the applicant’s divorce from his wife, he lodged an action before the Bucharest District
Court for the division of property they owned jointly. Before the first hearing in 2018, he and his wife
signed an agreement on the division of that property. The case concerns his claims for the
reimbursement of and/or exemption from the payment of full court fees in view of the fact that they
reached an out-of-court settlement.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that
the proceedings concerning his claims were unfair as there were conflicting decisions in the
domestic courts on the reimbursement of court fees. Also relying on Article 1 or Protocol No. 1
(protection of property), he alleges that he was obliged to pay the court fees in full, even though the
proceedings in respect of his case had been terminated at the first hearing as devoid of any purpose
following the out-of-court settlement.
No violation of Article 6
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
