Aldea and Others v. Romania

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 55689/21 Emil ALDEA and Others against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 September 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Faris Vehabović , President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 55689/21) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 November 2021 by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), represented by Ms C. Cătană, a lawyer practising in Târgu-Mureș;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 The application concerns an alleged breach of the right to a fair trial, in particular of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the context of civil proceedings lodged by the applicants against their employer concerning remuneration rights, in which they did not have access to classified documents considered decisive for the determination of their claims.

2 The applicants are firefighters employed at the Mureș Emergency Fire ‑ Station Unit ( ISU Mureș , “the employer”), under the authority of the Ministry of Defence of Romania. The applicants are thus military personnel.

3 . On 19 November 2018 the applicants lodged a civil claim against their employer requesting to be paid several remuneration rights, among which payment for alleged overtime hours worked on usual working days, as well as on regular non-working days, such as weekends and public holidays and that had allegedly not been compensated with free time by the employer.

4 . In the course of these proceedings the employer submitted to the court several documents regarding the applicants’ remuneration rights and payments, in particular the general orders establishing the remuneration rights for firefighters, as well as the attendance sheets and the payslips of all applicants. These documents were classified as secret ( secret de serviciu ), given the applicants’ status as military personnel. According to the Law no. 182/2002 regarding classified information (“Law no. 182/2002”), the courts had full access to the classified documents, but their content could not be disclosed to the applicants.

5 . The applicants were represented during the whole court proceedings by a lawyer of their own choosing. This lawyer did not possess a certificate from the Office of the national register for State secret information (hereinafter, “ORNISS certificate”), authorising access to classified documents. She did not request an adjournment of the case in order to obtain such a certificate.

6 The applicants requested, as evidence, an accounting expert report to calculate, for each applicant, the number of hours worked as overtime and the remuneration rights actually paid, and to determine whether there were any discrepancies. In their view, this verification by an expert was necessary, given the classified character of the documents regarding their remuneration rights, which had been submitted by the employer but were not available to them.

7 . By an interlocutory decision of 11 June 2020, the Mureş County Court (“the County Court”), as court of first instance, rejected the applicants’ request for an accounting expert report on the grounds that such evidence was neither conclusive nor useful for determining the claims, since the cornerstone of the case was solely the interpretation of the legal framework regarding the remuneration rights to which the applicants were entitled, a matter for the court to decide.

8 . By a decision of 9 July 2020, the County Court dismissed the applicants’ claims as ill-founded. In order to decide so, that court analysed all the documents submitted by the employer, including those classified as secret. It concluded that the applicants had been duly paid for the supplementary work performed during weekends and legal holidays by applying the increased percentage provided by law (75%) for the payment of those working hours, including any overtime worked during these days. The County Court noted that these aspects were highlighted distinctly and clearly in the payslips of the applicants, even if their content could not be reproduced in full in the decision because of their classified status. The County Court also held that, after verifying the documents submitted by the employer, including the classified ones, it found that the applicants had not exceeded the maximum permitted working time. Regarding the extra hours worked during usual working days, it held that the law allowed only compensation by granting time off. The applicants, who bore the burden of proof, had not proven that they had requested such compensation for this overtime and had been refused.

9 The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the decisions of the County Court concerning the rejection of their request for an accounting expert report as evidence in support of their claims, as well as on the merits.

10 . By a final decision of 3 February 2021 (served on 4 May 2021), the Mureş Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law as ill-founded and upheld the decisions of the County Court. It held that the presence of classified documents was not sufficient to justify the necessity of an expert report in the case. It considered that the fact that not all parties to the proceedings had access to the classified documents is the result of their special regime according to Law no. 182/2002 and the courts could not decide otherwise. The applicants did not ask the competent national authority to declassify the documents, according to Article 20 of Law no. 182/2002 and Article 24 of the Government Order no. 585/2002 approving the national standards for the protection of classified information in Romania (“Government Order no. 585/2002”). On the merits, the Court of Appeal stated that the County Court duly analysed all the documents submitted by the employer, including the classified ones and correctly concluded that the applicable legal provisions had been fully respected.

11 Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, given the restrictions on the adversarial proceedings and equality-of-arms principles during the domestic proceedings at issue. They argued that their procedural rights had been unjustly hindered since they did not have access to the classified documents scrutinised by the domestic courts when determining their claims and their request for an accounting expert report had been rejected as unnecessary based on these undisclosed classified documents. They also complained of the arbitrary interpretation and application of the law and the evidence by the domestic courts.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

12 On 6 July 2026 the applicants’ representative informed the Court about Mr Sebastian Friciu’s wish to withdraw his application due to the loss of interest.

13 In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part related to the applicant Sebastian Friciu (indicated under no. 37 in the appended table).

14 Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list in that part with respect to the applicant indicated above.

15 The applicants complained that the domestic proceedings had failed to comply with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms in the administration of evidence guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

16 The principles relating to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms have been summarised in the judgments Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, §§ 146-49, 19 September 2017 and Corneschi v. Romania , no. 21609/16, §§ 86-89, 11 January 2022.

17 Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that, as a result of the relevant legal provisions, the applicants did not have access, during the judicial proceedings, to the documents relating to their remuneration rights submitted by their employer.

18 The Court will examine if the restrictions on the applicants’ procedural rights were effectively counterbalanced by adequate safeguards.

19 . Under Law no. 182/2002, persons holding an ORNISS certificate are able to access classified documents. Law no. 182/2002 allows lawyers to obtain an ORNISS certificate and provides for a special procedure for this purpose. The duration of the vetting procedure for persons who request access to “secret” classified information is set at 60 working days (Article 148 of Government Order no. 585/2002) (see Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania [GC], no. 80982/12, §§ 54-58, 15 October 2020). After obtaining the certificate, the lawyer may access classified documents in the case file of the person they represent but may not disclose information classified as “secret” to that person (see Corneschi , cited above, §§ 53 and 58-59).

20 In the present case, the Court notes that the applicants had voluntarily appointed a lawyer to defend their interests (see paragraph 5 above).

21 The Court recalls that under domestic law, a lawyer appointed by a client to represent him in specific proceedings may apply for an ORNISS certificate authorising him to access classified documents in the case file (see paragraph 19 above). However, in the present case, after noting that the contested remuneration rights in respect of her clients were based on classified documents, the lawyer appointed by the applicants did not ask the domestic courts to adjourn the proceedings to allow her to take the necessary steps to obtain an ORNISS certificate (see paragraph 5 above).

22 The Court observes that the law did not impose any time limits on the domestic courts for deciding on the applicants’ claims (contrast with Muhammad and Muhammad , cited above, §§ 189-190). In the present case, the proceedings initiated by the applicants lasted more than two years (from 19 November 2018 to 3 February 2021 – see paragraphs 3 and 10 above). Given the length of the proceedings for obtaining an ORNISS certificate, which according to the relevant legal provisions is approximately 60 working days (see paragraph 19 above), the Court considers that the applicants’ lawyer could legitimately have requested an adjournment in order to complete the necessary steps to obtain such a certificate. Moreover, it considers that where, as in the present case, the persons concerned had instructed a lawyer to represent them from the outset of the proceedings which were not subject to strict time limits, it is not unreasonable to expect that legal professional to be familiar with the relevant legal provisions and to inform their clients of the safeguards provided for by domestic law (see S.L. v. Romania (dec.), no. 52693/12, § 53, 29 November 2022).

23 Thus, even though the applicants were to a certain extent restricted in their procedural rights, the Court finds that this was due to the manner in which their representative had decided to conduct the defence and not due to the absence of procedural safeguards established in domestic law. The Court considers that the applicants did not make full use of those safeguards (see, mutatis mutandis , ibid., § 54).

24 Finally, the Court notes that the applicants were able to put forward their claims before two levels of jurisdiction. It takes note of the powers conferred on the domestic courts, which enjoy the necessary independence and impartiality and which the applicants do not question (see mutatis mutandis Regner , cited above, § 152). The courts therefore had full access to all the classified documents relevant to the case, which were included in the file by the employer (see paragraphs 4 and 8 above; see also Corneschi , cited above, § 60).

25 Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the courts hearing the case covered the entire matter brought before them by the applicants. The courts had the power to examine the legality of the remuneration rights challenged by the applicants and, if necessary, to review them and afford more appropriate remedies (see paragraphs 7-8 above; see also Regner, cited above, § 152).

26 In this case, the courts seized of the matter duly exercised the powers of review available to them in this type of proceedings. They gave detailed reasons for their decisions in light of the circumstances of the case and responded to the arguments raised by the applicants before them (see paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 above). Insofar as the applicants were dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial, the Court reiterates that it is not called upon to act as a fourth-instance court and that it does not call into question, from the perspective of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the assessment of the domestic courts, unless their conclusions can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015), which is not the case here.

27 Having regard to the proceedings as a whole, the nature of the dispute and the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the domestic authorities (see Regner , cited above, § 147), the Court considers that the fair balance between the parties has not been affected to such an extent as to undermine the very substance of the applicants’ right to a fair trial.

28 It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in the part concerning the applicant Sebastian Friciu (indicated under no. 37 in the appended table);

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2026.

Valentin Nicolescu Faris Vehabović Acting Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of applicants:

Application no. 55689/21

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.

Emil ALDEA

1987

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

2.

Dan Marian ȘANTA

1986

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

3.

Ștefan Mircea ȚÂNTAR

1982

Romanian

CEUAȘU DE CÂMPIE

4.

Claudiu Petru AVRAM

1987

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

5.

Alexandru BACIU

1975

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

6.

Ciprian Viorel BĂRDAȘ

1985

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

7.

Sandor BIRO

1983

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

8.

Adrian Gheorghe BLOJ

1980

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

9.

Teodor Bogdan BOTEZAN

1986

Romanian

SÂNTANA DE MUREȘ

10.

Mihai Ionuț CĂBUȚ

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

11.

Ciprian Constantin CĂLUȘ

1976

Romanian

LUNCA BRADULUI

12.

Claudiu CĂLUȘER

1976

Romanian

SÂNTANA DE MUREȘ

13.

Vasile CĂLUȘERI

1982

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

14.

Stelian CĂȘVAN

1980

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

15.

Zaharie CHIBULCUTEAN

1967

Romanian

REGHIN

16.

Daniel CIOLOCA

1977

Romanian

TOPLIȚA

17.

Răzvan CIOLOCA

1988

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

18.

Ioan COCIȘ

1977

Romanian

PĂNET

19.

Sorin COCIȘ

1973

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

20.

Gabriel Augustin COMAN

1977

Romanian

IERNUT

21.

Răzvan Mircea COZMA

1988

Romanian

LIVEZENI

22.

Remus Alin CRĂCIUN

1985

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

23.

Robert CRAIOVEANU

1982

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

24.

Emil Claudiu CUCUIET

1976

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

25.

Csaba Zoltan CZIMBALMOS

1982

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

26.

Gabriel Martin CZINEGE

1985

Romanian

LUDUȘ

27.

Gheorghe DAN

1976

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

28.

Ștefan DAVID

1989

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

29.

Adrian Gavril DEAC

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

30.

Cosmin DOLHA

1988

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

31.

Mihai DUBLEA

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

32.

Silviu Rareș FARCAȘ

1983

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

33.

Zoltan FARKAS

1980

Romanian

SÂNGEORGIU DE MUREȘ

34.

Marian FLOREAN

1982

Romanian

SÂNTANA DE MUREȘ

35.

Eugen Vasile FRANDEȘ

1985

Romanian

IBĂNEȘTI

36.

Gelu Sebastian FRIȘAN

1983

Romanian

SÂNGEORGIU DE MUREȘ

37.

Sebastian FRICIU

1983

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

38.

Ionuț Pompiliu GHERMAN

1987

Romanian

SÂMPETRU DE CÂMPIE

39.

Nicolae Dorin GHERMAN

1973

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

40.

Sorin GLIGOR

1976

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

41.

Sandor GYORGY

1981

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

42.

Claudiu HABA

1979

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

43.

Miklos Szabolcs HAJDU

1982

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

44.

Ioan Adrian ȚIBOC

1983

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

45.

Lucian ILEA

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

46.

Nicolae Cristian IOJA

1982

Romanian

CORUNCA

47.

Adrian Nicu ISTRATE

1986

Romanian

SÂNGEORGIU DE MUREȘ

48.

Brad Darius IUGA

1978

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

49.

Dan Ioan KESSEL

1968

Romanian

REGHIN

50.

Csaba KOVACS

1978

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

51.

Ovidiu Cosmin LATEȘ

1976

Romanian

CRISTEȘTI, UNGHENI

52.

Marius Ciprian MACARIE

1981

Romanian

SÂNTANA DE MUREȘ

53.

Ovidiu Călin MĂDĂRĂȘAN

1980

Romanian

CERGHID

54.

Ioan MAIER

1981

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

55.

Marius Constantin MANOILĂ

1976

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

56.

Marius Claudiu MĂRGINEAN

1974

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

57.

Jozsef MARTON

1971

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

58.

Istvan MATYAS

1987

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

59.

Claudiu Ioan MIHEȘAN

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

60.

Ciprian MILĂȘAN

1978

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

61.

Silviu MILEȘAN

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

62.

Sebastian Florin MOCAN

1982

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

63.

Cristian Mihai MOGA

1983

Romanian

MIERCUREA NIRAJULUI

64.

Petru Răzvan MOIȘAN

1984

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

65.

Alin Dorin MOLDOVAN

1982

Romanian

SÂNTANA DE MUREȘ

66.

Iulian Octavian MOLDOVAN

1983

Romanian

IERNUT

67.

Mircea Mihai MOLDOVAN

1980

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

68.

Raul Bogdan MOLDOVAN

1994

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

69.

Septimiu Traian MOLDOVAN

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

70.

Sorin Ovidiu MOLDOVAN

1976

Romanian

SÂNGEORGIU DE MUREȘ

71.

Romulus MORAR

1977

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

72.

Andrei Attila NAGY

1977

Romanian

SĂCUIENI

73.

Gheorghe Ilie OLAH

1975

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

74.

Florin OPREA

1970

Romanian

REGHIN

75.

Alin Florin OROIAN

1987

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

76.

Adrian Octavian PANCU

1972

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

77.

Octavian PASC

1972

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

78.

Florin PASENCU

1981

Romanian

SÂNGER

79.

Ionuț Dumitru PETREA

1985

Romanian

IBĂNEȘTI

80.

Dan Gheorghe PÎRLEA

1985

Romanian

BISTRA MUREȘULUI,DEDA

81.

Mihai Vasile PÎRLEA

1986

Romanian

DEDA

82.

Dorin Marin POP

1979

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

83.

Florin POP

1976

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

84.

Miron Ioan POPA

1982

Romanian

CERGHID

85.

Ilie Ioan PRECUP

1980

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

86.

Doru Victor PUȘCAȘ

1983

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

87.

Ionuț Pascu PUI

1988

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

88.

Alexandru Claudiu RĂDULESCU

1976

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

89.

Vasile Silviu ROȘCA

1984

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

90.

Adrian ROMONȚI

1981

Romanian

CRISTEȘTI, UNGHENI

91.

Cristian ROMONȚI

1983

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

92.

Aurel Gabriel SABĂU

1983

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

93.

Gheorghe SABĂU

1978

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

94.

Domokos SANTHA

1976

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

95.

Vasile Cosmin SAXON

1980

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

96.

Florin Claudiu SFÎRIAC

1968

Romanian

SÂNGEORGIU DE MUREȘ

97.

Mihai Viorel SÎIA

1984

Romanian

SIBIU

98.

Claudiu Aurel STOICA

1981

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

99.

Nicolae STOICA

1979

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

100.

Cristian STOICIUC

1982

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

101.

Daniel STUPARU

1973

Romanian

REGHIN

102.

Cristian Ovidiu SUCIU

1986

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

103.

Gheorghe Daniel SUCIU

1985

Romanian

NAZNA

104.

Ioan-Cristian ŢĂRAN

1981

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

105.

Eugen TĂTAR

1981

Romanian

CRISTEȘTI

106.

Rareș Vlăduț ȘTEFAN

1988

Romanian

NAZNA, SÂNCRAIU DE MUREȘ

107.

Ciprian TODORAN

1984

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

108.

Raul Mihai TODUȚ

1987

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

109.

Vlad Daniel TOMA

1989

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

110.

Lucian Adrian UȚIU

1973

Romanian

TÂRGU MUREȘ

111.

Cantemir Claudiu VULTUR

1976

Romanian

COMORI, GURGHIU