FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 24188/14 Gheorghe LUNGU against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Georges Ravarani, Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2014,

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 Gheorghe Lungu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Timișoara. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Matei, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those described in Şandru and Others v. Romania (no. 22465/03 , §§ 7-12, 8 December 2009). They concern the events of December 1989 in Timișoara, which led to the overthrow of the communist regime and to the injury by gunshot of the applicant and of some other demonstrators. A criminal investigation into these events was opened by the domestic authorities. The case was referred to the criminal courts and by a decision of 9 December 1991, final on 6 June 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice convicted various senior military officers for extremely aggravated homicide, attempted homicide and illegal arrest to terms of imprisonment between 15 and 23 years.

B. Relevant domestic law

4. The relevant legal provisions are described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2011).

COMPLAINTS

5. The applicant complained about the lack of an effective and speedy criminal investigation into the events of December 1989 and about the absence of an effective domestic remedy. He relied on Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

6. The applicant ’ s complaints relate to the domestic authorities ’ failure to carry out an effective and thorough investigation within a reasonable time into the events of December 1989 in Timișoara during which he had been injured by gunshot.

7. The Government disagreed and, amongst other submissions , argued that the application had not complied with the six-month time-limit, calculated from the date of the final domestic decision.

8. The Court notes that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only examine complaints which have been submitted within six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. In the case at hand the investigation culminated in the conviction of certain senior military officers for actions taken during the events of December 1989 in Timișoara, by a decision of 9 December 1991, which became final on 6 June 1997 (see paragraph 3 above). It follows that the application lodged on 21 March 2014 is inadmissible owing to non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and that it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Țintaru and Others v. Romania (dec.) [Committee], no. 43624/13, 21 June 2016 ).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares inadmissible the application.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 March 2018 .

Andrea Tamietti Vincent A. De Gaetano              Deputy Registrar President