THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 18295/08 Marinel CIOBAN against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 11 March 2014 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dragoljub Popović, Luis López Guerra, Kristina Pardalos, Johannes Silvis, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 April 2008 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Marinel Cioban , is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Cluj-Napoca . He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Giurgea , a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca .

2 . The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent s , M s I. Cambrea and Ms C. Brumar , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

A. The circumstances of the case

3 . On 24 December 2005 the applicant ’ s son was involved in a car accident. His car was crashed into by another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction and he was killed instantly.

4 . On the same date the Prahova Police Office opened a criminal investigation in order to determine the circumstances of the accident. T he applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with his loss.

5 . In January 2006 the PloieÅŸti Prosecutor Office brought criminal proceedings for unintentional killing against B.F., allegedly the driver of the vehicle which had caused the accident.

6 . Between January 2006 and May 2007 the Ploieşti Prosecutor ’ s Office heard the parties and the witnesses, collected statements and carried out a polygraph test on B.F. Following contradictory statements by the two persons who had been in the car which caused the accident, several technical and forensic expert reports were commissioned in order to establish who the driver was.

7 . On 31 May 2007, as a result of the contradictory statements regarding who had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the Ploieşti Prosecutor ’ s Office decided to extend the criminal charge of unintentional killing to B.S., the second occupant of the vehicle which had crashed into the applicant ’ s son ’ s car . On the same date , the Prosecutor ’ s Office extended the charges against B.F. , charg ing him additionally with aiding an offender.

8 . In September 2007 the applicant sent letters to the Ploieşti Prosecutor ’ s Office and the Romanian Ministry of Justice complaining of lack of promptness in the criminal investigation , especially given that the case , in his opinion, was not complex , and asked the domestic authorities to expedite the proceedings. His letters remain ed unanswered.

9 . In Sept ember 2007 the Ploieşti Prosecutor ’ s Office sent the criminal file back to the Prahova Police Office, requesting it to carry out a polygraph test on B.S. I t also ordered that a new expert technical report be prepared and that a confrontation be conducted between the two occupants of the vehicle in order to identify the driver of the car.

10 . On 25 April 2008 the applicant asked the Prahova Police Office and the Ploieşti Prosecutor ’ s Office to provide him with copies of the relevant documents from the criminal investigation file in order for him to be able to submit them in support of his application to the Court. He also asked to be informed of the state of the proceedings and to be notified of any procedural act his lawyers and he could attend. On 28 May 2008 the Ploieşti Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the applicant that he could attend a supplementary expert technical investigation that was scheduled to be carried out on 6 June 2008.

11 . O n 28 August 2008 the Ploieşti Prosecutor ’ s Office issued an indictment charg ing B.S. with unintentional killing and B.F. with aiding an offender.

12 . By a judgment of 2 December 2009 the Ploieşti District Court convicted B.S. and B.F. as charged and sentenced them to f our and three years ’ imprisonment respectively. It also allowed the applicant ’ s just satisfaction claims in part and ordered B.S. to pay the applicant 5,600 lei in respect of pecuniary damage, 1 0,000 lei in respect of non-pecuniary damage , and 5,900 lei in respect of costs and expenses. The parties appealed against the judgment.

13 . By a judgment of 19 May 2010 the Prahova County Court increased the amount to be awarded to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage to 30,000 lei and upheld the remainder of the Ploieşti District Court ’ s judgment. The parties lodged appeal s on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment.

14 . On 2 March 2011 the PloieÅŸti Court of Appeal rejected the appeals and upheld the judgment of 19 May 2010.

B. Relevant domestic law

15 . The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code concerning life ‑ threatening crimes are described in Pantea v. Romania (no. 33343/96, § 154, ECHR 2003-VI).

COMPLAINTS

16 . Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the criminal investigation opened by the domestic authorities into his son ’ s death had lacked promptness and had been ineffective. Moreover, he complain ed of inactivity on the part of the domestic authorities over the course of the criminal investigation, noting that more than two years after the car accident they had still not identif ied the driver of the car which had caused it.

17 . Relying on Article 13 , taken together with Article s 2 and 6 § 1 of the Con vention, the applicant complained of lack of an effective remedy with regard to compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage aris ing from the authorities ’ failure to conduct an effective and prompt investigation into the death of his son .

18 . Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complain ed about the length of the criminal proceedings brought by the domestic authorities against the third parties who had caused the car accident.

19 . Relying on Article 34 of the Convention, he also complain ed that the failure of the Prosecutor ’ s Office to provide him with a copy of the criminal file in order for him to substantiate his claims before the Court had breached his right of individual petition.

THE LAW

A. Complaints under Article 2

20 . The applicant complained that the investigation into the road traffic accident that had caused his son ’ s death had been lengthy and ineffective, and that no effective remedy was available to him in order to obtain compensation in this connection. He relied on Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

21 . The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaint in issue falls to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Prynda v. Ukraine , no. 10904/05, §§ 45 and 46, 31 July 2012). This provision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. ”

22 . The applicant alleged that the investigating authorities had not acted with diligence when collecting evidence and had ignored opportunities for identifying those accountable. In addition, the investigation conducted into his son ’ s death had included long periods of inactivity on the part of the authorities.

23 . The Government maintained that the domestic authorities had acted with due diligence from the outset and that there had been no delays that could have prejudiced the effectiveness o f the investigation or the establishment of the facts of the case.

24 . The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2 of the Convention requires States, in particular, to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life in the context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99 , §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-XII , and Krivova v. Ukraine , no. 25732/05 , § 44, 9 November 2010). This obligation indisputably applies to designing a framework for the protection of life in the context of road traffic accidents (see Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02 , §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007 ).

26 . Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the tragic accident which resulted in the death of the applicant ’ s son occurred on 24 December 2005. On the same date the authorities instituted criminal proceedings and took a series of measures aimed at discharging their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. A number of investigative actions were carried out during the following months, including questioning and numerous forensic examinations. Several further expert reports were also required because of the difficulty in determining the person who was actually driving the car which caused the accident. The Court notes that the investigation was completed two years and eight months after the incident, with the indictment of the persons responsible for the death of the applicant ’ s son. Two years and six months later, the trial before the domestic courts, in which the applicant fully participated, concluded with the criminal conviction of the two defendants and the award of a reasonable amount in civil damages to the applicant (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). There is no information to suggest that the applicant has not been able to recover the sums due from the convicted person.

27 . In the light of the above considerations and notwithstanding the undoubtedly tragic events in this case, it cannot be held that the State failed to provide an effective judicial system in relation to the death of the applicant ’ s son (see, mutatis mutandis , Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 34885/06 , 13 November 2012).

The Court therefore considers that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

B. Other complaint raised by the applicant

28 . The applicant further complained that the authorities ’ failure to provide him with copies of the criminal file had hindered his right of individual petition before the Court as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention.

29 . The Court has examined th is complaint as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as i t fall s within its jurisdiction, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President