CASE OF ECATERINA MIREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 43626/13, 43644/13, 43652/13, 43663/13, 43666/13, 43674/13, 43682/13, 43754/13, 43778/13, 43788/13, ... • ECHR ID: 001-161984
Document date: April 12, 2016
- Inbound citations: 10
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 5
- •
- Outbound citations: 24
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ECATERINA MIREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
( Applications nos. 43626/13 and 69 other applications )
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 7 December 2016 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
STRASBOURG
12 April 2016
FINAL
17/10/2016
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ecaterina Mirea and others v. Romania ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
András Sajó, President, Vincent A. D e Gaetano, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Egidijus Kūris, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 8 March 2016 ,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1 . The applicants are all Romanian nationals. The applicants ’ personal details and the dates of their respective applications are set out in the appended table.
2 . The applicants were all represented before the Court by Mr Ionuț Matei, a lawyer practi s ing in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3 . On 14 February 2014 the applicants ’ complaints concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation, the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy were communicated to the Government . The remain ing complaints were declared inadmissible by the President of the Section, sitting in a single-judge formation. In so far as Ms Iulia Antoanella Motoc, the judge elected in respect of Romania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of the Court), the President decided to appoint Mr Krzysztof Wojtyczek to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29).
4 . The parties submitted written observations.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those in Asso ciation “21 December 1989” and O thers v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08 , § § 12- 41, 24 May 2011). They have the same historical context and relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings .
6 . Between 17 and 28 December 1989, many people, including the applicants and the close relatives involved in this case , took part in anti ‑ communist demonstration s in Bucharest, TimiÈ™oara, Slobozia , ViÈ™ina and Țăndărei , which led to the fall of the communist regime. They were injur ed or killed by gunfire during the demonstrations , which took place on 17 December 1989 in TimiÈ™oara, and in Bucharest and other cities across the country from 21 to 28 December 1989 .
7 . In 1990, following the overthrow of the communist regime, the military prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal investigation in to the December 1989 armed crackdown o n the anti-communist demonstration s in Bucharest and the other cities .
8 . In a number of cases concerning the events in Timișoara, the investigations culminated in referral to the courts and the conviction of senior military officers (see Şandru and Others v. Romania , no. 22465/03 , § § 6-47, 8 December 2009 ).
9 . As regards the events in other cities , the criminal investigation is still pending before the prosecuting authorities. The most important procedural steps were summari s ed in Asso ciation “21 December 1989” and O thers (cited above , § § 1 2-41). Subsequent developments in the investigation are as follows.
10 . On 18 October 2010, the military prosecutor ’ s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided not to institute criminal proceedings with regard to the acts committed by the military, finding that the applicants ’ complaints were part ly statute-barred and part ly ill-foun ded. The investigation into cr imes committed by civilians, members of Patriotic G uards, members of militia and prison staff was severed from the case file and jurisdiction was relinquished in favour of the prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
11 . On 15 April 2011 the chief prosecutor at the military prosecutor ’ s office set aside the decision of 18 October 20 1 0 on the ground s that the investigation had not yet been finali s ed and that not all the victims and perpetrators had been identified .
12 . On 18 April 2011 the military prosecutor ’ s office relinquished jurisdiction in favo ur of the prosecutor ’ s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice on the ground s that the investigation concerned both civilians and military personnel .
13 . On 9 March 2012 - following the opening of the classified information in the criminal investigation file to the public in 2010 - the case was re-registered with a view to an investigation in the light of the newly available data.
14 . F ollowing the entry into force of the n ew Code of Criminal Procedure in February 2014 , jurisdiction over the case was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor ’ s office.
15 . On 14 October 2015, the prosecutor ’ s office closed the investigation , finding that the applicants ’ complaints were partly statute-barred , partly subject to an amnest y and partly ill-founded . It also found that some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences ; and that some of the facts were res judicata . The parties have not submitted any information on whether there was an appeal against that decision .
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
16 . The legal provisions and relevant domestic practice in relation to the criminal proceedings in connection with the events of December 1989 and respectively to the statutory limitation of criminal liability are detailed in Acatrinei and Others v. Romania , ( no. 10425/09 and 71 other cases , § § 16 ‑ 17, 26 March 2013 ) ; Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above , § § 101-107) ; Alecu and Others v. Romania , ( no. 56838/08 and 80 other cases , § § 15-17, 27 January 2015 ) ; and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08 , § § 193-196, ECHR 2014 (extracts) .
Loading citations...17 . The statutory provisions regarding military prosecutors in La w no. 54/1993 on the organi s ation of military courts and prosecutor ’ s offices have been abolished by Law no. 247/2005 on reform s in the field of property , justice and other ancillary measures , which came in to force on 25 July 2005 .
18 . Currently, the statute of the military prosecutors is regulated by Law no. 303/2004, on the Statute of judges and prosecutors, and by Law no. 304/2004, on the organization of the judicial system, both amended by Law no. 255/2013, on enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which also amended regulatory acts relating to provisions for criminal offences .
19 . Conversely to Law no. 54/1993, pursuant to the current Statute of the judges and prosecutors, the appointment system in a function of military prosecutor provides that a person must meet the conditions set by law to enter the judiciary, on the confirmation of the Ministry of National Defence in respect of compliance with the legal prerequisites for undertaking duties of an active duty officer. The appointment as a military prosecutor, the transfer from a civil prosecutor ’ s office to the military prosecutor ’ s office and the conferment of military ranks are governed by joined Rules of the High Council of the Judiciary and the Ministry of National Defence, in force as of 6 February 2014 (Article 32). The career of the military prosecutors is regulated by the statute of the judges and prosecutors (Article 105). The military prosecutors are active duty officers and they enjoy the corresponding benefits (Article 74), they are disciplinarily liable based on the statutory provisions concerning judges and prosecutors, the military discipline not being applicable to them (Article 98).
20 . Pursuant to Law no. 304/2004, the Ministry of National Defence is the manager of the budget of the military prosecutor ’ s office. The annual budget project is designed, after consulting the military prosecutor ’ s office, by the relevant section from the Prosecutor General Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and is transmitted to the manager of the budget; annually, the Government includes the necessary financial funds in the budget of the Ministry of National Defence (Articles 131 and 132).
THE LAW
I. THE JOINDER OF THE CASES
21 . The Court notes that the applications concern the same factual circumstances and raise similar legal issues. Consequently, it considers it appropriate to join all the applications, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE PROCEDURAL HEAD
22 . The applicants complained of the lack of an effective, impartial and thorough investigation , capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the violent crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest , Timișoara, Slobozia , Vișina and Țăndărei , when they had been injur ed and their close relatives had been killed by gunfire. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention.
23 . Having regard to the facts , and as in Şandru and Others (cited above, §§ 51-54), the Court considers that the present case must be examined under the procedural head of Article 2 of the Convention. These provisions read as follows :
Article 2
“1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally .. .”
A. Admissibility
24 . T he Government raised the object ion that some of the applicants lacked victim status , given the fact that they had never been parties to the criminal action . In that connection, the Government referred to the fact that the applicants had failed to first address the domestic authorities in respect of acts committed against them or their close relatives during the events of December 1989 and which were contrary to their rights protected by the Convention . They considered that participation in the criminal investigation was a prerequisite to bringing claims in respect of the progress of the criminal proceedings .
25 . The applicants argued that they had victim status with regard to the absence of an effective investigation into the violence to which they or their close relatives had been subjected .
26 . The Court has summarised the principles governing the assessment of an applicant ’ s victim status in paragraphs 178- 1 92 of its judgment in the case of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V) and, with respect to claims under Article 2 of the Convention, in its judgment in the case of Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (no. 7888/03, §§ 51-64, 20 December 2007).
27 . The Court re iterates that in cases where Article 2 of the Convention has been invoked in relation to the de ath or disappearance of close relatives in circumstances allegedly engaging the responsibility of the State , it has recognised the standing of the victim ’ s next-of-kin to submit an application even if the next-of-kin was not involved in the domestic procedure ( Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08 , § § 98-100, ECHR 2014 ).
28 . The Court observes that the criminal investigation opened ex officio into the events of December 1989 concerned, among othe r issues , injury to the applicants and the death of their close relatives in gunfire .
29 . The Court notes that the applicants complained of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural head in relation to the alleged ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation , on account of its length and the authorities ’ failure to involve them in the procedure.
30 . In conclusion, the Court finds that all the applicants may claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court observes that this part of the applications is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds, bearing also in mind the Court ’ s findings with respect to its ratione temporis jurisdiction in the cases of Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 116 ‑ 118) and, mutatis mutandis , Mocanu and Others (cited above §§ 207 ‑ 211). It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
31 . The applicants complained of the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities into the violent quashing of the anti ‑ communist demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities , in which they had been injured or their close relatives had been killed by gunfire. In particular, they complained of the excessive length of the proceedings and long periods of inactivity, as well as other shortcomings and a lack of impartiality in the investigation. They refer red to the fact that the criminal investigation was still pending before the prosecuting authorities , more than twenty-five years after the events in question .
32 . As regard s the facts and progress of the criminal investigation , the Government made reference to their observations in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above) and Alecu and Others (cited above) . In addition, they argued that the military prosecutors who had carried out the criminal investigation had been independent and impartial in their judicial decisions, there being no relationship of subordination between them and the Ministry of National Defence , under Laws no. 303/2004 and 304/2004, as amended .
33 . The Court reiterates that an investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of the circumstances of fact and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but of means. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 30054/96, §§ 96 ‑ 97 , 4 May 2001 , and Anguelova v. Bulgaria , no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002 ‑ IV ). Even where there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities is vital in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts. The State ’ s obligation under Article 2 of the Convention will not be satisfied if the protection afforded by domestic law exists only in theory: above all, it must also operate effectively in practice and that requires a prompt examination of the case without unnecessary delays. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Å ilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 195, 9 April 2009 ; Var nava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 191, ECHR 2009 ; and Association “21 December 1989” and Others , cited above , § 134 ).
34 . In the present case, the Court notes that in 1990 a criminal investigation was opened ex officio with regard to the armed supp ression of the anti-communist demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities, with a view to establish ing the circumstances of the death or injury of a large number of pe ople .
35 . T he Court observes that it can only take into consideration the period after 20 June 1994, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Romania (see Şandru and Others , cited above, §§ 5 5-59 ) .
36 . In 1994 the case was pending before the m ilitary p rosecutor ’ s o ffice. In this connection, the Court notes that the statut ory provisions concerning mil itary judges and prosecutors have been amended (see paragraph s 1 8 – 2 0 ). I n the present case, the investigation carried out by the military prosecutors does not , of itself, raise question s under the procedural head of Article 2 (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05 , § § 223 and 237, 14 April 2015 ).
37 . Regard must be had as to exactly how the investigation was carried out , and whether it can be qualified as effective within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention.
38 . T h e investigation in question appears to be still pending before the prosecuting authorities after more than twenty-five years – and four years after the judgment in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above) became final .
39 . The Court does not underestimate the undeniable complexity of the present case. It considers, however, that complexity alone cannot justify the length of the investigation or the manner in which it was conduc ted over that very lengthy period.
40 . In addition, the shortcomings in the investigation ha ve on several occasions been noted by the domestic authorities themselves. The subsequent investigation, however, did not remedy th ose shortcomings.
41 . In Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, § § 133 ‑ 1 45 and §§ 152- 1 54), the Court examined the conduct by the domestic authorities of the investigation opened ex officio into the violent sup pression of the demonstrations during the events of December 1989. It concluded that Article 2 of the Convention had been violated under its procedural head on the ground s that the domestic authorities had fa iled to act with diligence.
42 . The Court no ted in respect of the same events and the same criminal investigation that the domestic authorities had also failed to comply with their obligation to involve the victims ’ close relatives in the procedure (see Acatrinei and Others , cited above, §§ 33-35 ). In that connection , the Court observes that no justification has been put forward with regard to the total lack of information provided to the applicants about the investigation, especially from 2011 to the present da y (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above, §§ 140- 1 41).
43 . In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants did not have the benefit of an effective investigation , as required by Article 2 of the Convention.
44 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, under its procedural head.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS AND ABSENCE OF A N EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC REMEDY
45 . The applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities . They also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the determination of their claims. They relied in that connection on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. Th o se provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“ “In the determination of [his civil rights and obligations] ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
46 . The Government contested that complaint .
47 . Having regard to the finding relating to Article 2 (see paragraph 4 4 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, § 181) and Alecu and Others (cited above, § 45) .
IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
48 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
49 . T he applicants claimed amounts between 100,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 1,000,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and amounts between EUR 100,000 and EUR 1,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
50 . The Government contested these claims, considering the amount s excessive.
51 . The Court notes that its finding of a violation of the procedural head of Article 2 of the Convention arising from the absence of an effective criminal investigation into the injuring of the applicants and the killing of the ir close relatives by gunfire during the events of December 1989 const itutes the sole basis for awarding just satisfaction in the present cases .
52 . The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, t he Court considers that the violation of the procedural head of Article 2 has ca used the applicants substantial non-pecuniary damage , such as distress and frustration . Ruling on an equitable basis , it awards them the amounts set out i n the appended table, under this head , plus any tax that may be chargeable .
B. Costs and expenses
53 . The applicants did not submit a claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
54 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Decides, unanimously, to join the applications;
2. Declares , by a majority, the applications admissible in respect of the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention;
3. Holds , by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural head;
4. Holds , unanimously, that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds , by six votes to one,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amounts set out in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses , unanimously, the remainder of the applicants ’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 April 201 6 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos András Sajó Registrar President
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek is annexed to this judgment.
A.S. F.E.P.
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no. and date of application
Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Particular circumstances of the application
Applicable Article
Amount to be paid by the respondent State under Article 41 of the Convention
43626/13
28/06/2013
Ecaterina MIREA
07/01/1938
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim shot in Bucharest on 21 December 1989 , who died on 25 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43644/13
28/06/2013
Livia DIMA
04/12/1941
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim shot in Bucharest on 23 December 1989 , who died on 26 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43652/13
28/06/2013
Elena COMAN
15/11/1980
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter of a victim shot in Bucharest on 21 December 1989 , who died on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43663/13
28/06/2013
Maria CIUNGAN
25/01/1928
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43666/13
28/06/2013
43682/13
28/06/2013
Maria BENDORFEAN
01/08/1961
Cioponești, Vâlcea County
Alexandra- Ioana POTEREANU [1]
21/12/1988
Cioponești, Vâlcea County
IonuÈ› MATEI
Widow and daughter of a victim shot in Bucharest on 21 December 1989 , who died on 24 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
43674/13
28/06/2013
Dumitru Ilie BENDORFEAN
26/05/1979
Rupturile, Dolj County
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son of a victim shot in Bucharest on 21 December 1989 , who died on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43754/13
28/06/2013
43912/13
28/06/2013
Alina Andreea MANEA
15/09/1986
Bucharest
Marilena Lucia MANEA
11/06/1967
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter and widow of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 25 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
43778/13
28/06/2013
43792/13
28/06/2013
Daniel MIRCIA
01/04/1978
Timișoara
Mihaela Emilia MIRCIA
04/10/1974
Timișoara
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son and daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Timișoara on 23 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
43788/13
28/06/2013
43917/13
28/06/2013
43886/13
28/06/2013
Iosefa MIRCEA
21/07/1968
Sinandrei, TimiÈ™ County
Paul FLUERAN
16/03/1962
Sinandrei, TimiÈ™ County
Veronica SAVIN
02/05/1963
Sinandrei, TimiÈ™ County
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son and daughters of a victim killed by gunshots in Timișoara on 25 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
43803/13
28/06/2013
Georgeta RÄ‚DULESCU
02/07/1948
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim shot in Bucharest on 23 December 1989 and who died on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43824/13
28/06/2013
Ana PAVEL
27/09/1974
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Injured by gunshots in Bucharest on 22 December 1989. As noted in minutes of 13 January 1990, the public prosecutor took note of the applicant ’ s situation.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43829/13
28/06/2013
43840/13
28/06/2013
Maria PÄ‚UNOIU
02/12/1946
Bucharest
Sebastian Silviu PÄ‚UNOIU
03/09/1970
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Widow and son of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
43834/13
28/06/2013
Georgiana Andreea PÄ‚UNOIU
15/07/1968
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43878/13
28/06/2013
Nechifora TIAN
20/06/1941
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
43907/13
28/06/2013
Elena JUBEA
01/03/1934
Timișoara
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Timișoara on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64622/13
08/10/2013
64719/13
08/10/2013
Cătălin Florian BĂLAN
03/08/1974
Bucharest
Carmen-Bianca BÄ‚LAN
23/08/1976
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son and daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64623/13
08/10/2013
Maria FLORESCU
05/10/1936
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64625/13
08/10/2013
Georgeta MARIN
02/02/1945
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 24.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64629/13
08/10/2013
64783/13
08/10/2013
Liliana MITU
24/10/1957
Bucharest
Florentina-Adriana RÄ‚UÈšU
27/06/1981
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Widow and daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 21.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64630/13
08/10/2013
64679/13
08/10/2013
64691/13
08/10/2013
Floarea VLAD
09/09/1954
Bucharest
Florența-Lidia VLAD
10/03/1978
Bucharest
Alexandru-Cristian VLAD
11/02/1976
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Widow, daughter and son of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64631/13
08/10/2013
64650/13
08/10/2013
Elena-Alexandra SANDU
05/12/1989
Bucharest
Vetuța Claudia SANDU
02/05/1973
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter and widow of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 21.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64632/13
08/10/2013
64689/13
08/10/2013
64692/13
08/10/2013
Aurelian MORĂRAȘ
29/11/1980
Bucharest
Elena MORĂRAȘ
15/06/1959
Bucharest
Marius-Andrei MORĂRAȘ
22/10/1983
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Sons and widow of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 22.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64646/13
08/10/2013
Ioan BUCȘA
31/07/1925
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Father of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64654/13
08/10/2013
64717/13
08/10/2013
Mihai Cosmin MÄ‚RÄ‚CINICÄ‚
07/02/1989
Bucharest
Felicia MÄ‚RÄ‚CINICÄ‚
03/05/1958
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son and widow of a victim killed by gunshots in Slobozia on 24 December 1989, following a refusal to stop the car for a military check.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64661/13
08/10/2013
Cornel MÄ‚RÄ‚CINICÄ‚
10/10/1977
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son of a victim killed by gunshots in Slobozia on 24 December 1989, following a refusal to stop the car for a military check.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64664/13
08/10/2013
64669/13
08/10/2013
64699/13
08/10/2013
Maria OPREA
10/06/1963
Bucharest
Gheorghe OPREA
13/08/1932
Bucharest
Mihai Alexandru OPREA
27/10/1987
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Parents and son of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 22 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64672/13
08/10/2013
64682/13
08/10/2013
64676/13
08/10/2013
Dobrin CONSTANTIN
09/09/1976
Bucharest
Maria CONSTANTIN
14/03/1952
Bucharest
Cristina FILIP [2]
27/07/1987
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son, widow and daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64680/13
08/10/2013
64683/13
08/10/2013
64688/13
08/10/2013
64693/13
08/10/2013
Florin-Vasile LUPU
18/12/1985
Bucharest
Costel LUPU
13/11/1987
Bucharest
Mihai LUPU
24 /11/1984 [3]
Bucharest
Aurica LUPU
02/07/1955
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Sons and widow of a victim killed by gunshots Bucharest on 24.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64684/13
08/10/2013
Ionica-Lili IONICÄ‚
07/04/1979
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64695/13
08/10/2013
Cosmin MORĂRAȘ
17/11/1979
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 22.12.1989
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64703/13
08/10/2013
64781/13
08/10/2013
Raluca Alexandra COVORAN
28/08/1970
Bucharest
Elena-Maria BÄ‚DULESCU
11/02/1950
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter and widow of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64706/13
08/10/2013
64788/13
08/10/2013
Ana SANDU
14/06/1957
Bucharest
Leonardo Eugen SANDU
15/03/1978
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Widow and son of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 22.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64712/13
08/10/2013
Ionica CRÄ‚CIUN
15/10/1974
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 22.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64713/13
08/10/2013
Oliviu-Flaviu PETRE
15/07/1975
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son of a victim killed in a plane crash in Vișina, Dâmbovița on 28.12.1989, linked to the military operations of December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64714/13
08/10/2013
Elisabeta TENTZER
30/06/1941
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 26.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64721/13
08/10/2013
Mihai-Cosmin MOLDOVEANU
24/03/1980
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son of a victim killed in a plane crash in Vișina, Dâmbovița on 28.12.1989, linked to the military operations of December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64724/13
08/10/2013
Adrian-Nicolae BUCUR
16/10/1983
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 26.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64727/13
08/10/2013
Anișoara BORȘU
20/06/1950
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 25.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64729/13
08/10/2013
Camil-DragoÈ™ MOLDOVEANU
08/05/1986
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Son of a victim killed in a plane crash in Vișina, Dâmbovița on 28.12.1989, linked to the military operations of December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64734/13
08/10/2013
Cristina GORNEANU
07/01/1932
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Mother of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 24.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64743/13
08/10/2013
64747/13
08/10/2013
Vasile OLTEANU
03/05/1942
Bucharest
Maria OLTEANU
22/08/1945
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Parents of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 22.12.1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64745/13
08/10/2013
Ana Maria-Raluca BUCUR
12/08/1985
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 26.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64763/13
08/10/2013
Alina CONSTANTIN
24/06/1980
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
64771/13
08/10/2013
64778/13
08/10/2013
Felicia LAMBERT
02/10/1952
Bucharest
Constantin LAMBERT
30/12/1948
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Parents of a victim killed by gunshots in Bucharest on 23.12.1989.
Mother injured by gunshots in Bucharest on 23.12.1989, with supporting medical evidence.
Parties in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly
64797/13
08/10/2013
Adriana MOISE
11/03/1982
Bucharest
IonuÈ› MATEI
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshots Bucharest on 22.12.1989.
Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.
2EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK
I have voted against finding a violation in the instant case for the reasons explained in detail in my separate opinions in the cases of Janowiec and Others v. Russia ([GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09 , ECHR 2013) and Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08 , ECHR 2014 (extracts)). In my opinion, the respondent State is under no obligation to investigate events pre-dating the entry into force of the Convention in respect of that State.
[1] Rectified on 7 December 2016: the text was “ Alexandra Ioana BENDORFEAN”
[2] Rectified on 7 December 2016: the text was “ Cristina CONSTANTIN” .
[3] Rectified on 7 December 2016: the text was “21/11/1984 ” .