5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  In 1984, the applicant, a professional photographer, took a number of photographs of landscapes in Călăraşi County that had been commissioned for commercial publication in an album. The album was not, in the event, published, but the photographs were retained by F.G., who was in charge of the album project. 7.  In 2004, the applicant discovered by chance that an album named “Călăraşi County” had been published by a company run by F.G. in 1999. He noticed that of the 143 photographs of landscapes from Călăraşi County contained in the album, 135 were photographs taken by him and left in the possession of F.G. in 1984. However, F.G. was credited as the photographer, and not the applicant. 8.  The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against F.G. with the Romanian Copyright Office (“the RCO”) on 25 February 2004, claiming that F.G. had committed one of the offences provided for by Articles 140‑142 of Law 8/1996 on copyright and neighbouring rights (“Law 8/1996”). He joined a civil action to the criminal complaint, seeking compensation amounting to EUR 50,000 for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage. 9.  On 29 June 2004, a report was drawn up by the RCO following an investigation carried out at the headquarters of the company that had published the album. 10.  After finalising its investigation and concluding that the provisions of Article 140 § 1 let. a) of Law 8/1996 had been infringed, the RCO forwarded the applicant’s complaint, together with the accompanying documents, to the Călăraşi Police Department on 5 November 2004. 11.  On 8 November 2004, an expert report was ordered by the Călăraşi Police Department. The report, dated 24 December 2004, confirmed that the photographs had been taken by the applicant. 12.  On 21 April 2005, the prosecutor’s office attached to Călăraşi County Court decided not to open a criminal investigation on the ground that the limitation period for the punishment of F.G. had expired. 13.  The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Chief Prosecutor. The latter confirmed the decision not to open an investigation. 14.  A complaint lodged by the applicant with the Călăraşi County Court was allowed on 24 November 2005. The court held that the period between 27 April 1999 (the date of publication of the album) and 25 February 2004 (the date on which the applicant lodged his complaint with the RCO) was less than five years – the term of limitation provided by law. It added that the procedure stipulated by Law 8/1996 was a special procedure for the punishment of offences related to copyright, which was justified by the complexity and exceptional nature of such cases. Therefore, the court held that in the light of the special provisions applicable to the file, the date from which the term of limitation of five years should have been calculated was not the date on which the RCO forwarded the file to the police (5 November 2004) but the date on which the applicant lodged his complaint with the RCO (25 February 2004). 15.  Accordingly, the Călăraşi County Court remitted the file to the prosecutor’s office in order for it to initiate criminal proceedings. 16.  On 17 February 2006, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the prosecutor against the judgment of 24 November 2005 and held that the case had become time-barred, given that the police had received the criminal complaint only on 5 November 2004 – more than five years after the offence had been committed. No reference was made to the civil complaint lodged by the applicant.