ECHR. Precautionary seizure over marital joint property

The European Court of Human Rights held that the imposition and maintenance of a precautionary seizure over property jointly owned by spouses, ordered in the context of criminal proceedings against one of them in order to secure the recovery of the damage caused by the alleged offence, does not violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 where the measure is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and complies with the principle of proportionality.

In assessing the latter requirement, the Court attached particular significance to the temporary nature of the seizure (lasting more than five years), the complexity of the criminal proceedings, the availability of effective judicial review, the fact that the applicant remained in possession and continued to use the seized property, and the existence of adequate procedural safeguards under domestic law.

The Court further emphasized that, under the applicable national legislation, enforcement against the share belonging to the co-owner who was not involved in the criminal proceedings was impossible prior to the partition of the jointly owned property.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the measure did not impose an excessive burden on the applicant and that the national authorities had struck a fair balance between the protection of the right to property and the general interest in securing the recovery of damage resulting from criminal offences.

(Judgment of 16 July 2026, delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in Ileana Roșu v. Romania.)

Source: https://www.juridice.ro/840442/cedo-sechestrul-asigurator-asupra-bunurilor-comune-ale-sotilor.html