Judgment Pacurar v. Romania - Confiscation of unexplained property from public official as a result of verification by the National Integrity Agency triggered by failure to fill in

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 155 (2025)   24.06.2025   The European Court of Human Rights found lawful the confiscation of   unexplained property from public official as a result of verification by the   National Integrity Agency triggered by failure to fill in correctly the declarations   of assets   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Păcurar v. Romania (application no. 17985/18) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and   no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case concerned the confiscation of assets belonging to Mr Păcurar on the basis of legal provisions   aimed at preserving integrity in the exercise of public office, as the provenance of the assets was   “unexplained”. As a result of verification carried out by the National Integrity Agency triggered by the   applicant’s failure to fill in correctly his declarations of assets, approximately 57,000 euros in assets   were confiscated following an order by the Cluj Court of Appeal in February 2016.   The Court found in particular that Article 6 was applicable under its civil limb, not under its criminal   limb, as the proceedings did not concern the determination of criminal charges against the applicant.   Mr Păcurar had had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings, both written and oral, had   been represented by a lawyer of his choice, and the process had not been arbitrary. Moreover, the   reversal of the burden of proof as operated by the Romanian courts as regards the licit acquisition of   assets was found to be lawful. The Court also found that the confiscation had been proportionate   because there were sufficient safeguards in the legal framework under which it had been carried out,   and Romania had acted within its discretion in its fight against corruption in the public service in a   European context where it was being urged to adopt concrete steps in this field.   Principal facts   The applicant, Ioan Păcurar, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Cluj-Napoca   (Romania). He was a chief of a county police inspectorate.   In 2011 the National Integrity Agency (Agenția Națională de Integritate – “the ANI”) noted that   Mr Păcurar had not filled in his declaration of assets correctly. This declaration was compulsory for   high-level public officials, members of the judiciary, people holding management positions and public   servants, pursuant to Law no. 115/1996, including Mr Păcurar. A verification procedure concerning his   assets was started.   In September 2012 Mr Păcurar was told that there were significant differences between his   expenditure and income. Later that month the ANI reported that for the periods 2001, 2003, 2004 and   2008 to 2010, the differences had amounted to 718,847.54 Romanian lei (ROL – approximately   189,143 euros (EUR)) in total..   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.   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.   The case was sent to the Commission for the Verification of Assets attached to the Cluj Court of   Appeal. A hearing was held in November 2012, with Mr Păcurar represented by counsel of his   choosing. He made submissions.   The Commission gave its findings in March 2013. It held, among other statements, that there were   discrepancies for the period up until 2004. It held that the burden of proof fell between the ANI and   Mr Păcurar, finding that that had amounted to a provable difference of ROL 261,310 (approximately   EUR 59,000). The matter was forwarded to the Cluj Court of Appeal for decision on confiscation.   Following several hearings and submissions of documents, judgment was delivered in February 2016   against Mr Păcurar. The Cluj Court of Appeal replied, over 18 pages, to the arguments raised by him.   It reiterated that while property was presumed in general to have been acquired in a licit manner, this   presumption ceased to exist for public servants when there was definite evidence (dovezi certe) that   some assets had not been acquired in a licit manner and was closely linked to the obligation to declare   their assets. The court ordered the confiscation of ROL 254,924 (about EUR 57,000) from Mr Păcurar.   Mr Păcurar appealed on points of law. He was again able to make submissions and bring new evidence   before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, including making arguments on his allegedly not   receiving the benefit of the presumption of the licit acquisition of property. His appeal was rejected   in March 2017, with the lower courts’ decisions being upheld.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property),   Mr Păcurar complained that his property had been confiscated and that the confiscation proceedings   had been unfair.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 April 2018.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Lado Chanturia (Georgia), President,   Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),   Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),   Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Portugal),   Anne Louise Bormann (Denmark),   Sebastian Răduleţu (Romania),   András Jakab (Austria),   and also Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court firstly decided that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was applicable under its civil limb as the   confiscation proceedings did not concern the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant.   The Court further noted the following: the proceedings had been multi-phase through administrative   proceedings and at several levels of court jurisdiction. Mr Păcurar had raised arguments before the   Commission for the Verification of Assets in adversarial proceedings, some of which had been   accepted by that body. The Commission’s findings had been reviewed by the courts, who had based   their judgements, correctly, on the interpretation of the law as previously set out by the Constitutional   Court and the High Court. He had been able to appeal on points of law and submit new evidence   before the High Court.   2 The Court reiterated that, in principle, switching the burden of proof to the defendant in cases   concerning the verification of the source of a public official’s assets, does not raise any issues under   the Convention. That had been in accordance with the law.   There was no question that the relevant legislation (Law no. 115/1996 and the Code of Civil Procedure)   had been in any way unclear.   Mr Păcurar had had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings, both written and oral, and   had been represented by a lawyer of his choice, and the process had not been arbitrary. There had   been no breach of his fair-trial rights.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   At the outset, and noting that it was primarily for the national authorities to interpret national law,   the Court considered that there had been a clear legal basis for the confiscation of Mr Păcurar’s   property. The confiscation had had the legitimate aim of the fight against corruption and ensuring   integrity in public office. Concerning the proportionality of the measure, the Court reiterated that any   interference with the right to the protection of property could only be considered legitimate if it could   be evaluated in adversarial proceedings with equality of arms.   The Court noted that that the relevant Romanian legislation (Laws nos. 115/1996 and 176/2010) and   the activity of the ANI had been commended for helping Romania combat corruption by Council of   Europe and European Union bodies.   Mr Păcurar had failed to respect the legal provisions on declarations of assets, which had called into   question how they had been acquired. The resulting procedure had followed clearly set-out rules, and   he had been able to make his case. There had been no legal presumption that his unexplained assets   had been obtained through criminal activity. His personal circumstances had been fully taken into   account, and indeed the framework for dealing with such cases did so on a case-by-case basis.   Overall, there were sufficient safeguards in the legal framework under which the confiscation had   been carried out, and Romania had acted within its discretion (“margin of appreciation”) in its fight   against corruption in the public service in a European and international context where it was being   urged to adopt measures in this field.   The Court therefore found that the confiscation had been proportionate to the aim pursued and that   there had been no violation of the right to protection of property.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter)   @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   3 The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4