5.  The first applicant, Ms Floare Cacuci, was born on 2 March 1939 and lives in Oradea. She is an accounting expert and the owner and general manager of the second applicant, S.C. Virra & Cont Pad SRL, a single‑member company based in Oradea. Both applicants were members of the Romanian Institute of Accounting Experts and Certified Accountants (Corpul experților contabili și contabililor autorizați din România). 6.  On 30 July 2001 the criminal department of the Bihor County Police ordered a forensic accounting report in a criminal case it was dealing with. The first applicant was appointed to produce this report, which concerned pecuniary damage to the State budget in the sum of 22,143,258,699 Romanian lei (ROL), allegedly caused by S.C. T.P. SRL, a private company. The first applicant’s fees in relation to that expert report amounted to ROL 497,250,000.
Claiming that she had not been fully paid for the report, on 25 January 2004 the first applicant submitted to the county police only approximately ninety-five pages of the report, which actually consisted of more than five hundred pages. She only submitted the conclusions of the report. The annexes justifying the conclusions were thus not appended on that occasion, but at a later date (see paragraph 22 below).
The first applicant alleged that, when asked by the Police to hand in the remaining pages of the report, she had replied that the report was on her computer, and that, since she had not received any payment for it, she was not able to print it, as it was extremely long. 7.  On 25 March 2005 the first applicant, together with two other accounting experts, was appointed by the Oradea District Court to produce a forensic accounting report in a criminal case concerning tax fraud, forgery and the use of forged documents – offences allegedly committed by two third parties, M.G.S. and C.V.C, in their capacity as managers of two private companies. A fourth expert, who was assisting M.G.S. and C.V.C., was also appointed to participate in producing the report.
The conclusions of the report, which was submitted on 15 September 2005 by the three experts and with which the assisting expert agreed, noted that no damage had been caused to the State budget by the managerial activities of M.G.S. M.G.S. and C.V.C were acquitted on 7 December 2005 by the Oradea District Court. That judgment was later upheld by the Bihor County Court on 28 May 2007 on appeal, and by the Oradea Court of Appeal on 22 May 2008 in an appeal on points of law. 8.  On 18 October 2005 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Oradea District Court proposed to initiate ex officio criminal investigations against the first applicant in relation to an offence of intellectual forgery (fals intelectual, defined by Article 289 of the Criminal Code) in connection with the second forensic accounting report. The prosecutor noted that the report was based solely on documents provided by M.G.S., in spite of the fact that it stated that the district court’s case file had been consulted. In the case file, there was no request from any of the experts to either consult the file or obtain copies of it. The conclusions of the report were therefore not based on all the documents on file, in spite of what the report stated. 9.  The prosecutor’s proposal also concerned the two other accounting experts, who were investigated for the same offence as the first applicant. 10.  The proposal to initiate criminal investigations in respect of the first applicant was confirmed by the prosecutor’s office on 19 October 2005. 11.  On 20 October 2005 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Oradea District Court filed an application with the court, asking it to issue a search warrant in respect of the first applicant’s home.
The prosecutor argued that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed intellectual forgery while producing the second forensic accounting report, in order to help one of the defendants, M.G.S, avoid investigation. The grounds for this suspicion were: the report’s conclusions contradicted the conclusions of a previous report which had been produced by another accounting expert during the criminal investigation; the report objectives proposed by M.G.S. had most likely been copied and pasted into the report itself, the two documents having the same page settings, wording, spelling and grammar mistakes; and there was no proof that the first applicant had ever studied the case file in the court’s archives or requested copies of the documents in order to produce the expert report, therefore the report was probably based solely on information provided by M.G.S.
The prosecutor also stated that, in accordance with the decision of 19 October 2005, a criminal investigation had already been initiated in respect of the first applicant in relation to intellectual forgery.
The prosecutor further submitted that important evidence relating to the production of the second expert report – such as a computer, a printer, files and documents (whether on paper or on disc) – could be obtained from the first applicant’s home. 12.  On the same day the Oradea District Court – sitting as a single judge, Judge F.P. – allowed the prosecutor’s application and issued a warrant to search the first applicant’s home, with the aim of discovering evidence concerning the alleged offence of intellectual forgery. In accordance with the relevant domestic law, the decision was taken in camera, in the presence of the prosecutor and without summoning the parties.
The warrant was to last three days, the court stating that the search was to be carried out in compliance with Articles 101, 103-108 and 111 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter “the RCCP” – see paragraph 46 below). It was formulated as follows:
“Based on Article 100 of the RCCP, in view of the prosecutor’s application issued on 20 October 2005 and the investigative work which has been presented, namely: the minutes attesting to the decision of the prosecutor to initiate criminal investigations ex officio, confirmation of the proposal to initiate criminal investigations against Cacuci Floare in relation to the offence of intellectual forgery as set out in Article 289 of the Criminal Code, and the forensic reports included in the file, [the court] authorises that a home search (percheziție domiciliară) be performed at the suspect’s place of residence, [the suspect being] Cacuci Floare, daughter of ..., born on ..., in Oradea, ..., in the Bihor District.
The search shall be performed in compliance with Articles 101, 103-108 and 111 of the RCCP.
This warrant is to last three days from the day of issue.
Given in camera on 20 October 2005 at 3 p.m.” 13.   According to the first applicant, on 21 October 2005, while she was in the street, having just left her house, she was stopped by a police officer, who told her that he had a search warrant for her home. The first applicant asked to be assisted by her lawyer. The police officer then searched her bag, from which he seized some personal documents, including an orange notebook containing various phone numbers. Subsequently, a prosecutor entered the first applicant’s home in order to perform the home search, accompanied by three police officers, one of whom was an information technology (IT) specialist. 14.  According to the Government’s version of events – supported by the documents in the file, as issued by the criminal investigating authorities (see paragraph 42 below) – the search of the bag was carried out inside the first applicant’s home. 15.  The first applicant’s lawyer arrived at the beginning of the search, namely around ten minutes after the first applicant had been stopped in the street (see paragraph 13 above); two assistant witnesses, who were neighbours of the first applicant, were also present during the search. 16.  The prosecutor’s notes in the search report produced on that occasion at the place of residence of the first applicant state that the first applicant was asked to surrender the items used to commit the alleged offence of intellectual forgery, namely the computer, the printer, and the documents on which the second expert report was based (Articles 96-99 of the RCCP, see paragraph 45 below). The first applicant confirmed the existence of such items at her place of residence.
According to the search report, the first floor of the building was occupied by the first applicant’s office, where she claimed to keep the objects which had been requested and other objects essential to her professional duties.
Several items and documents were found, the first applicant claiming that everything belonged to the second applicant. She showed the prosecutor a lease contract concluded between herself and the second applicant in respect of the use of one half of the immovable property.
According to the report, the following objects were seized: the computer’s central processing unit, one printer, four files and documents concerning various forensic accounting reports, one CD, forty-two floppy discs, an orange notebook containing several notes written by the first applicant and telephone numbers – one of which belonged to M.G.S., see paragraph 7 above – and an empty printer cartridge box. 17.  The applicants argued that, while the copy of the search report handed to them at that moment had made no mention of the manner in which the seized items had been sealed, the copy in the criminal file contained supplementary information on page 4, mentioning that the objects had been put in a sealed cardboard box labelled MAI (the Ministry of Internal Affairs) 15980. 18.  At the end of the search the first applicant declared, in the presence of her lawyer, that she would submit written objections at a later stage. The witnesses had no objections concerning the manner in which the search had been carried out. 19.  According to the report, the search started at 8.45 a.m. and was finished by 12.30 p.m. 20.  On 18 November 2005, at the request of the prosecutor, the Oradea District Court issued a warrant for a search of the computer system and IT data seized from the applicants on 21 October 2005, namely one CD and forty-two floppy discs. The court gave reasons for its decision, accepting that there was sufficient indication that the IT data would prove that the impugned expert report had been partly copied from a document given to the first applicant by M.G.S (see paragraph 11 above).
The warrant was to last three days, starting on 21 November 2005. 21.  According to the applicant, on 18 November 2005 she was summoned to the Cluj District police headquarters to participate in the unsealing of the computer on 21 November 2005. She went there with her lawyer, where they noted that the sealed box was different to the box which had been used at her house during the search (see paragraphs 16-17 above). She therefore asked that the two witnesses who had been present at the search be summoned to attest that the box was different, but the request was refused. Consequently, together with her lawyer, she decided to leave the police headquarters without attending the unsealing and search procedure. 22.  On 5 December 2005 the first applicant submitted the missing 497 pages from the first expert report (see paragraph 6 above) to the Oradea District Court, following payment of 60% of her fee. 23.  On 8 November 2005, pursuant to Articles 275-2781 of the RCCP (see paragraph 47 below), the first applicant filed a complaint against the search carried out on 21 October 2004 (see paragraphs 13-19 above). She contested both the search itself and the manner in which it had been carried out.
The first applicant submitted that the warrant had been issued only in respect of her home, and not in respect of the registered office of the second applicant. In spite of that, a search of the whole house had been carried out, including the space used by the second applicant. The seized items and documents belonged to the second applicant.
The first applicant also submitted that the search had not been necessary, and could have been avoided if she had been asked to submit the relevant items and documents, as set out in Article 98 of the RCCP (see paragraph 45 below). Furthermore, no reasons had been given to justify the search measure.
She argued that the limits of the search warrant had been exceeded by the search carried out in respect of her purse, which constituted a body search (percheziţie corporală), and by the fact that she had been prevented from using her mobile phone during the search.
She complained of the manner in which the electronic devices seized had been sealed on that occasion.
She further referred to the seizure of various items from her home, namely “personal documents and personal notebooks which had no connection to the criminal charge against her”, concluding that all the above circumstances constituted evidence of a breach of her right to a private life, personal inviolability, professional secrecy, and right of property. 24.  On 24 November 2005 the head prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office attached to the District Court of Oradea dismissed the first applicant’s claims, finding that the complaint against the search measure itself was inadmissible, given the lack of specific legal provisions allowing for such an appeal, while the complaint concerning the carrying out of the search was ill-founded. 25.  Concerning the appeal against the search measure itself, the prosecutor gave reasons for his inadmissibility decision, stating that it was inconceivable that any search warrant application would be debated in adversarial proceedings, as such a procedure would impede the very purpose of the search, namely the discovery and collection of specific evidence from a specific place without prior notice.
The prosecutor stated that the search at the applicant’s home had been conducted in accordance with the law. The warrant had been issued in respect of her residence as stated on her identification documents. The prosecutor submitted that the investigating authorities had had no obligation to check whether that residence was also the registered office of various private companies. In the impugned forensic expert report, the first applicant had given her identification details, including her place of residence, without mentioning that the report had been issued by or on behalf of the second applicant. Moreover, during the search, the first applicant had submitted a lease contract concluded between herself and the second applicant concerning one half of the immovable property, without specifying or determining which half belonged to which party.
The prosecutor also stated that the investigating authorities had been obliged to seize all pieces of physical evidence found at the search location, irrespective of who owned them, and that the pieces not belonging to the suspect had been returned to their owner at the end of the criminal trial. 26.  Concerning the body search, namely the search of the first applicant’s bag, the prosecutor submitted that the relevant forensic rules set out clearly and authoritatively that such a search had to be performed before the start of a home search, “so as to preclude any potential act of aggression against the authorities or self-aggression, but also so as to locate and collect any potential corpora delicti thus hidden by the searched person (in [this] case, documents)”.
The rules also provided that the investigating authorities were obliged to prevent any people inside the building in question from communicating with people outside, whether by phone or otherwise, which justified the fact that the first applicant had been temporarily prevented from using her mobile phone. 27.  In respect of the manner in which the seized electronic devices had been sealed, the prosecutor stated that the report produced on that occasion had been signed by both the first applicant and her lawyer, and no objections had been raised. As mentioned in the report, the central processing unit of the computer had been sealed in a cardboard box with the MAI seal. In any event, the manner in which the seized objects had been sealed could not affect the legality of the search, but possibly their use as evidence in the criminal proceedings. 28.  The first applicant contested that decision before both the prosecutor’s office attached to the County Court of Bihor and the Oradea District Court. 29.  It is unclear whether any response to that complaint was given by the prosecutor’s office. In any event, the same complaint was assessed by the domestic courts in two separate sets of proceedings, as detailed below. 30.  In the first set of proceedings, started by the first applicant on 23 December 2005, the Oradea District Court gave its judgment on 29 June 2006, dismissing the first applicant’s complaint as inadmissible in respect of the search measure itself, and ill-founded in respect of the manner in which the search had been carried out. The court stated that, in the event that she was indicted, the first applicant would be entitled to lodge with the criminal courts complaints regarding the search and the acts of the prosecutor. 31.  The first applicant appealed. On 28 November 2006 the Bihor County Court dismissed her appeal, upholding the first instance court’s decision. It considered that the search had been lawful and in compliance with the warrant issued by the Oradea District Court. Furthermore, at the material time, the first applicant, assisted by her lawyer, had not objected to either the search or the manner in which it had been carried out.
The court considered that it would be “abusive” to have an adversarial procedure for debating the necessity of a search, either before or after it was carried out. 32.  In the second set of proceedings, a complaint lodged by the first applicant on 4 January 2006 reiterated the same main arguments as those presented in the proceedings described above. In particular, it referred to the fact that the limits of the search warrant had been exceeded as follows: the warrant had only been issued in respect of her home, and not in respect of the registered office of the second applicant; no warrant had existed in respect of her purse or mobile phone; certain items, like her personal notebooks, had been seized even though they had no connection with the criminal charge. The computer had been seized without being appropriately sealed, therefore the first applicant had refused to take it back in the absence of verification and confirmation by an expert that the IT data had not been altered. The first applicant argued that the real aim of the prosecutor and the police had been to seize her computer in order to copy the 497 pages of annexes to the first accounting expert report (see paragraph 6 above).
In any event, the search had not been necessary, as she would have surrendered all required items and documents if she had been asked to. 33.  The complaint was allocated to a single judge for determination, Judge F.P., who on 21 February 2006 asked to recuse herself from the case, as it had been she who had examined and approved the application for a search warrant on 20 October 2005 (see paragraph 12 above).
That request was dismissed by the President of the Oradea District Court on the same day. It was noted that the first applicant had expressly confirmed that she was not challenging the search measure itself, but the manner in which it had been carried out. In such circumstances, there was no reason for Judge F.P. to withdraw from the case. 34.  In the context of the second set of proceedings, on 28 June 2006 the first applicant lodged an application calling into question the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 100 § 4 of the RCCP (see paragraph 46 below). She claimed that the impugned provisions breached a claimant’s defence rights, right to a fair trial and right to an effective remedy, as he or she was denied the right to participate in proceedings and contest a search measure. 35.  The application was dealt with by the Romanian Constitutional Court (“the Constitutional Court”), which gave its judgment on 30 November 2006, dismissing the objection as ill-founded. The Constitutional Court firstly found that the constitutionality of the impugned provisions had already been examined and found to be in accordance with the Constitution (the court referred to its decision of 21 October 2004, detailed in paragraph 52 below). The court reiterated that only the legislature could dictate the jurisdiction of the domestic courts and trial procedure.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court held that the issuing of a search warrant was a procedural measure and not a trial in itself, and that therefore the summoning of parties was not obligatory, especially as a search was conducted in the presence of the interested parties and/or their representative. Moreover, interested parties had at their disposal several opportunities and means to contest any measure taken during a criminal investigation or criminal trial. 36.  The case was sent back to the Oradea District Court, which gave its judgment on 31 January 2007, dismissing the first applicant’s complaint. The court noted that a similar claim lodged by the first applicant in another set of proceedings had already been dismissed by a final judgment (see paragraph 31 above).
The court further stated that the search had been carried out in compliance with the domestic legal provisions and in the presence of the prosecutor, the applicant and her lawyer, and no objections had been raised at the material time.
It appears that the decision was not appealed against by the first applicant. 37.  In January 2006 the second applicant was struck off the list of the Romanian Institute of Accounting Experts and Certified Accountants; the first applicant was removed from the list from January 2006 until 7 April 2010, allegedly as a result of the criminal investigations against her. 38.  The first applicant was indicted on 27 September 2009, charged with perjury as a witness in a criminal trial, aiding and abetting a perpetrator (with specific reference to the criminal trial concerning M.G.S. and C.V.C.), and spoliation (the material alteration, thereby invalidation) of evidence.
The indictment referred to the items seized during the search of 21 October 2005, namely documents relating to the forensic accounting reports issued by the first applicant and relevant to several criminal proceedings against various suspects (C.V.C., A.D., F.K., G.P.); the prosecutor considered that such documents had been withheld by the first applicant for the purpose of obstructing justice.
The indictment stated that the criminal proceedings against the two other accounting experts (see paragraph 9 above) were to be terminated (scoatere de sub urmărire penală). 39.  By a judgment of 30 November 2010 the Oradea District Court acquitted the first applicant of all charges.
In relation to the charge of perjury, the court held that such a charge was relevant where an expert had been called before a court to give oral evidence, which had not been the case with regard to the first applicant. In relation to the written evidence given by the first applicant in the form of the forensic accounting report, the court held that the report was a collective piece of work produced by the three experts appointed in the case. Even if evidence had been adduced proving that only one of the experts had personally studied the file in the court’s archives, it could not be inferred that the work had been done by the first applicant exclusively and in the absence of consideration of all the relevant documents and consultation with the other experts.
The court further stated that there was insufficient proof that the first applicant had favoured M.G.S. The accounting expert report had been produced with the other experts appointed in the case. The first applicant had been selected as an expert in the impugned criminal proceedings from a list of six experts, and it had therefore been impossible for her to plan to help M.G.S in any way.
With reference to the documents found at the first applicant’s residence during the search carried out on 21 October 2005, the court stated that they had not been in her possession unlawfully, as all of them had been given to her by the police for the purpose of allowing her to produce the relevant forensic accounting reports. It could therefore not be inferred that the applicant had withheld the documents with the intention of obstructing justice. The court ordered that all IT equipment seized from the first applicant should be returned to her once the judgment became final. 40.  By a judgment of 21 April 2011 the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the prosecutor and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment, stating essentially that the presumption of innocence in respect of the first applicant had not been rebutted. The only dissenting opinion of the Oradea Court of Appeal considered that the case should have been remitted to the first-instance court for a re-trial, as the first-instance judgment had lacked appropriate reasoning. 41.  The first applicant filed several criminal complaints against the relevant prosecutors and police officers who had requested and carried out the search of 21 October 2005 with various domestic authorities (the Romanian Senate, the High Council of the Judiciary and the Ministry of Internal Affairs), accusing them of abuse of office for carrying out the search in breach of Articles 100-111 of the RCCP (see paragraph 46 below). She reiterated her arguments: a special warrant and a separate report had been needed for the body search (Article 106), and another warrant had been necessary for the search of the company’s registered office (Article 111). 42.  Those complaints were joined and assessed in a unique case file, being dismissed as ill-founded by the Oradea Court of Appeal on 20 September 2006. The court upheld the prosecutor’s decision. In respect of the complaint concerning the body search, it found that the search of the applicant’s bag had been carried out inside her house, as a preliminary step of the actual search measure. Furthermore, the home search warrant had been issued in respect of an address, not in respect of a person or company. The court concluded that all the complaints were ill-founded.
That decision was upheld by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 10 November 2006. 43.  The first applicant also submitted to the Court a copy of another undated criminal complaint, which was addressed to the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. In the complaint, the first applicant claimed that the search report had been forged with regard to the manner in which the computer had been sealed (see paragraphs 16-17 above). She also stated that, at some point after the search, she had noticed that the data on her computer relating to various forensic accounting reports which she had produced had been altered while at the police headquarters, so as to provide evidence to incriminate her.
In the absence of any registration number or reference to a domestic file number, it is unclear if and when that complaint was lodged with the domestic authorities; assuming that it was, it is equally unclear whether the first applicant received any response.