Ion Dedu, rezervist SRI, versus România

“Inca o nenorocire comisa de SRI este pe cale sa arunce in aer Romania la CEDO,aducandu-i statului roman – pentru a cata oara? – o condamnare pentru abuzurile la care a fost supus un cetatean al sau. Curtea Europeana a Drepturilor Omului i-a adresat statului roman pe 25 noiembrie 2018 nu mai putin de 4 intrebari in legatura cu felul in care Serviciul Roman de Informatii si diverse instante autohtone i-au calcat in picioare colonelului SRI (r) Ion Dedu (foto 1) mai multe drepturi fundamentale prevazute de Conventia EDO.”, scria pe siteul publicației online Lumea Justiției ( marți, 18 decembrie 2018. Vă punem la dispoziție documentul CEDO.

Communicated on 25 November 2018


Application no. 56397/15
against Romania
lodged on 6 November 2015


The application originated in disciplinary proceedings which were opened against the applicant by the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul Român de Informații – SRI). In particular, the applicant alleged that by taking and enforcing the decision to consign him, the authorities breached, respectively, his rights to liberty and to freedom of movement provided for by Articles 5 § 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 because the measure was unlawful and/or did not pursue a legitimate aim, and/or the courts failed to examine whether it was proportionate. He also alleged that the proceedings he was involved in were unfair and breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 because (i) the courts lacked impartiality as they were composed of judges which were vetted by SRI during the procedure which must be followed in order to obtain ORNISS certificates; (ii) during the court proceedings neither the applicant, nor his chosen legal representative had access to essential evidence which was classified and which could be used for his defence; and (iii) the domestic courts failed to provide reasons for their judgments with regard to his arguments concerning his consignment. He further alleged that (i) the unlawful decision to consign him also at his home for nine days; and (ii) the fact that he was denied access to the orders issued against him and the documents grounding the said orders which concerned him directly amounted to a breach of his right to private and family life provided for by Article 8. Lastly, the applicant alleged that the domestic proceedings did not provide him with an effective remedy for the alleged breaches of his Convention rights in breach of Article 13.