NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE v. ROMANIA - 41720/13 (Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Grand Chamber)

Guido Raimondi, President, Angelika Nußberger, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Robert Spano, Işıl Karakaş, Ganna Yudkivska, Nebojša Vučinić, Kristina Pardalos, Vincent A. De Gaetano, Paul Lemmens, judges, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, ad hoc judge, Egidijus Kūris, Yonko Grozev, Armen Harutyunyan, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Marko Bošnjak, Tim Eicke, judges, and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar ,

(a) for the Government Ms C. Brumar , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent , Ms M. Luduşan , magistrate seconded to the Government ' s Agent Department, Counsel , Mr L. Bleoca , Minister-Counsellor, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Delegation of Romania to the Council of Europe, Adviser ,

. Shortly afterwards, the applicant requested the High Court of Cassation and Justice to transfer the case to another court, on the basis of legitimate suspicion regarding the judges of the District Court. The High Court of Cassation and Justice granted the applicant ' s request on 21 June 2011, noting the positions of the parties and the fact that the applicant had lodged criminal complaints against the judges and prosecutors from Ploieşti (see paragraph 62 below). It transferred the case to the Bucharest District Court.

. On 30 September 2011 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant ' s objections against the expert report of 29 September 2010 and confirmed the prosecutor ' s office ' s decision in so far as it discontinued the criminal proceedings against J.C.P. According to the available evidence, the lorry had been legally parked by J.C.P., the applicant first hit the lorry and then his car was hit by D.I.

. Concerning the criminal proceedings against D.I., the court considered that D.I. had not discharged his lawful duty to drive preventively. The decision to discontinue the proceedings against D.I. was contradictory, considering that the same decision acknowledged that D.I. had breached his legal duty. Also, the conclusion of the expert report of 20 December 2007 that D.I. could not have avoided the accident was at odds with the provisions of the relevant domestic legislation concerning preventive driving.