Communicated on 16 September 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 52013/10 Elena TURCU against Romania lodged on 20 July 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Elena Turcu , is a Romanian national, who was born in Con ț esti and lives in T â rgovi ş te .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 14 May 2007 the applicant, who is a judge, was involved in a minor car accident with no casualties or injured. The criminal investigation opened against the applicant following the car accident was intensely scrutinised by the media and developed into a public scandal. All the major television stations and newspaper reported on or followed her case.

On 29 May 2007 the applicant brought criminal proceedings with civil claims against the three police officers who had carried out the investigation into the circumstances of her car accident for unlawful deprivation of liberty, abuse of office against private interests and abusive behaviour. She argued among other things that the police officers had failed to fulfil their duty and protect her and her family ’ s public image although she had repeatedly requested them to do so. She contended that after the accident they had called the press and that they had allowed them to film and photograph her and her family, including her six years old daughter, at the scene of the accident and at the police station while she was being handcuffed, was undergoing a breathalyser test or was being heard in respect of the circumstances of the accident. In addition, the press was called and allowed to film and photograph her at the hospital while she was being t ested for alcohol in her blood.

By a final order of 3 January 2008 the Prosecutor ’ s Office attached to the Ploie ş ti Court of Appeal discontinued the criminal proceedings opened by the applicant against the three police officers on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed. The applicant challenged the order before the domestic courts. She reiterated the arguments raised before the prosecutor ’ s office. In addition, she contended that the public prosecutor ’ s office had failed to examine all her arguments and submissions.

By a final judgement of 14 May 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant ’ s challenge. It held that the presence of the applicant ’ s daughter at the scene of the accident and in the police station had been the choice of her parents and therefore the police officers could not be held responsible for that. Furthermore, the press representative had followed the police cars at the scene of the accident and they could not have been prevented from filming on public grounds. The court did not provide any further express arguments in respect of the applicant ’ s claims.

On an unspecified date in 2011 the Court of Cassation acquitted the applicant in respect of the charges brought against her following the car accident of 14 May 2007 on the ground that no u nlawful act had been committed.

COMPLAINT

Invoking Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that her right to private and family life as well as her right to reputation had been breached because the investigating authorities called and allowed the press to film and photograph her and her family, including her six years old daughter, at the scene of the accident, at the hospital and at the police station while she was being handcuffed, was tested for alcohol in her blood or was providing the authorities with statements about the circumstances of her case.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in so far as the police officers called and allowed the press to film and photograph her at the scene of the accident, at the hospital and at the police station while she was being handcuffed, was tested for alcohol in her blood or was providing the authorities with statements about the circumstances of her case? If so, was this interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?