6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bucharest. 7.  In 2005 a businessman, G.B., lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and the rector of the University of Agronomy concerning the sale of a 224-hectare plot of land located in Băneasa, near Bucharest. He claimed that the applicant had purchased the plot of land for significantly less money than its actual worth. He also alleged that the plot of land was not the property of the University but of the Romanian State. 8.  On 14 February 2008 the General Prosecutor’s Office decided not to start an investigation, for lack of evidence. However, on 31 July 2008 the Chief Public Prosecutor quashed this decision and relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service (“the NAP”). 9.  On an unspecified date in March 2009 the NAP officer in charge of the inquiry made an accusation that he had been pressured to stop the investigation. According to his statements, two senior directors from the Ministry of the Interior, namely the head of the Ministry’s Internal Protection and Intelligence Department and the head of the Anti-Corruption Department’s Operation Division within the same Ministry, asked him to resolve the case quickly and to provide a favourable response. 10.  On the basis of the NAP officer’s testimony, the initial investigation concerning the applicant and the rector was extended to include the two senior directors from the Ministry of the Interior. 11.  On 12 March 2009 the applicant was invited to NAP headquarters. He gave a statement. 12.  On 20 March 2009 the NAP started a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant on the ground that he was an accomplice to an offence of abuse of position committed by the rector of the University of Agronomy. 13.  On 23 March 2009 the NAP started another criminal investigation in respect of the applicant in connection with the offence of active bribery on account of the influence exercised on the NAP officer in charge of the inquiry. 14.  On the same day the prosecutor issued orders to appear before the investigators against the applicant and five other co-defendants. In the order to appear issued against the applicant it was stated that the order’s objective was to ensure that the applicant was heard in his capacity as a suspect (“învinuit”) in connection with the offences of abuse of position and active bribery under Articles 248 and 255 in conjunction with Article 26 of the C.P. 15.  On 24 March 2009, at about 3 p.m., the applicant was taken by police to NAP headquarters in accordance with an order to appear before the investigation body. 16.  When the applicant arrived at NAP headquarters the questioning of one of his co-accused, S.I.C, was in progress and lasted until 7.50 p.m. 17.  Subsequently, another co-accused, P.P.D., was questioned between 8.30 p.m. and 10.05 p.m. 18.  Two lawyers chosen by the applicant were called and invited to NAP headquarters to assist him. 19.  According to the Government’s submissions, one of the applicant’s lawyers arrived at NAP headquarters at 4 p.m. and the other at about 7.45 p.m. 20.  The applicant stayed at the headquarters of the prosecuting authorities without being questioned until 10 p.m. According to his allegations, which have not been contradicted by the Government, he was not free to leave. 21.  The Government did not contend that they had informed the applicant that he had been free to leave; on the contrary, in their written submissions to the Court they maintained that the applicant had remained at their disposal for questioning between 3 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. 22.  Between 10 p.m. and 10.55 p.m. the applicant was informed of the charges against him and was heard by the investigators. 23.  From 11 p.m. to 11.20 p.m. the prosecution authorities questioned another co-accused, A.I.N. 24.  The applicant was kept at NAP headquarters until 11.30 p.m., when he was informed of the decision taken by the NAP on the same day concerning the charges against him and the other defendants. 25.  The NAP charged the rector of the University of Agronomy with abuse of position with aggravated consequences, the applicant with complicity in abuse of position, and the two senior directors of the Ministry of the Interior with favouring the offender. By the same decision all the defendants were remanded in custody for twenty-four hours, the period of detention starting to run at 11.30 p.m. 26.  The next day, on 25 March 2009, at about 6.40 p.m., the NAP asked the Bucharest Court of Appeal to remand the applicant and the other two defendants in custody (the rector was released) for twenty-nine days, from 25 March 2009 until 22 April 2009. 27.  On the same date, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, ruling as a single judge, dismissed the prosecution’s request. 28.  It ruled that keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention was not necessary. In this connection it stressed that the applicant had not evaded criminal proceedings, but had complied with every summons from the prosecution service. It also stated that bringing the accused on the basis of an order to appear before the investigation body was not justified as he had never refused to come when summoned to the NAP. It concluded that there was no evidence that the release of the accused posed any specific threat to public order or would impede the criminal proceedings. 29.  However, the court imposed on all of them a prohibition on leaving the country for thirty days, on the ground that there was reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offences with which they had been charged. 30.  An appeal on points of law lodged by the NAP against this decision was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 1 April 2009. The High Court endorsed the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, noting that the applicant’s pre-trial detention appeared excessive, given that the applicant had no criminal record, had been of good standing in society, and there was no evidence in the file that he had evaded criminal proceedings. The court considered that the prohibition on leaving the country ensured the right balance between the general interest of society in the good administration of justice and the applicant’s interest. 31.  By a decision delivered on 22 April 2009 the NAP extended the prohibition on the applicant’s leaving the country for another thirty days, from 23 April to 22 May 2009. The reasons provided by the prosecutor for taking such a measure were that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence, and that it was necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice. 32.  The applicant contested the measure before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, arguing that the prosecutor’s decision did not provide sufficient reasons for the extension of the restrictive measure, adding that he had willingly attended each time he had been summoned by the investigators. He stressed that the restriction on leaving the country had been imposed in 2009, but in connection with an offence that he had allegedly committed in 2002. He relied on the fact that he was an important businessman for whom freedom of movement outside the country was vital for conducting his business. 33.  In his oral submissions before the court the prosecutor added that the restriction on the freedom of movement was justified by the necessity to ensure the speediness of the proceedings. The applicant replied that he had not been invited to the NAP to give a statement since 24 March 2009. He added that the speediness of the proceedings was in his own interest too, because as a well-known businessman his reputation and integrity were being harmed as long as there were proceedings pending against him. 34.  The measure was upheld by an interlocutory judgment rendered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 27 April 2009, which found that the reasons provided by the prosecutor were sufficient. It held that since there were no new circumstances which could change the applicant’s situation there was no reason to revoke the preventive measure against him. 35.  An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice as inadmissible on 8 May 2009. It held that the applicable law did not provide for an appeal on points of law against an interlocutory judgment by which a request for revocation of a preventive measure had been dismissed. 36.  On 19 May 2009 the NAP again ordered the extension of the prohibition on the applicant’s leaving the country for another thirty days. The reasoning of the decision was exactly the same as in the previous decision of 22 April 2009. The applicant challenged the measure before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. He stated that he needed to leave the country as he had been invited to a business meeting abroad. 37.  By an interlocutory judgment of 1 June 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the revocation of the measure. It held that the applicant had not tried in any way to hinder the investigation or to leave the country, and that he was observing all the obligations imposed on him by the judicial authorities. It also stated that there was still reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence, but the revocation of the restriction would not impede the proper administration of justice. It concluded that although the imposition of a preventive measure should be justified by the necessity to ensure the proper administration of justice and to protect society by preventing the commission of new offences, in the instant case the NAP had not managed to explain why allowing the applicant to leave the country could have negative repercussions on the administration of justice. At the same time, it stressed that maintaining the restriction would not prevent the applicant from contacting all the parties in the case and influencing them. 38.  The appeal on points of law lodged by the NAP was allowed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 9 June 2009. It dismissed the applicant’s complaint, and upheld the NAP’s decision to extend the restriction. It held that the restriction should be maintained because of the negative social impact caused by the offence committed by the applicant and the complexity of the case, which involved multiple procedural acts. 39.  On 18 June 2009 the NAP extended the restriction on the applicant’s right to leave the country for another thirty days. The applicant’s complaint against the measure was allowed by an interlocutory judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The court held that there were no reasons to justify the maintenance of the preventive measure. It noted in this connection that no procedural act had been carried out in the case since 21 May 2009, and the applicant, a well-known businessman, had been present whenever the investigators summoned him. An appeal on points of law lodged by the NAP was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 3 July 2009. 40.  On 19 May 2009 the applicant was invited to NAP headquarters and informed that he was charged with the offence of active bribery. The applicant refused to give a statement, availing himself of his right to silence. A report was drafted and signed by the applicant, his lawyer and the prosecutor on that occasion. 41.  On 21 December 2012 the file was registered with the Bucharest Court of Appeal. According to the most recent information provided by the applicant, the criminal proceedings against him are still pending.