THIRD SECTION

Application no . 8050/13 Eugen CONSTANTIN against Romania lodged on 7 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Eugen Constantin , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Timişoara . He is represented before the Court by Organizaţia Naţională Pentru Drepturile Omului , a non-governmental organisation based in Timişoara .

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

3 . On 26 February 2008 at around 18:00 o ’ clock the applicant ’ s twenty -four years old son G.C. was hit by a van while he was intending to cross the street on a zebra crossing zone. The victim died immediately. The van drove by F.M. was transporting six workers from their work site to their homes.

4 . The investigation started by the police concerning the accident ended on 27 November 2008 with the prosecutor ’ s proposal not to commence the criminal pursuit against the van ’ s driver for the crime of manslaughter because no guilt could be established on his behalf.

Statements from five persons who were waiting for a bus or walking on the other side of the street mentioned that the traffic light was red for the cars and other cars were stopped on the second lane of the street at the time of the accident. They also mentioned that no other cars were in front or behind the van drove by F.M. All the six persons who were in the van, declared that when they were approaching the zebra crossing, they all looked at the traffic light and it was green for the cars. They also declared that the van had very low speed as there were numerous cars in front and behind them.

According to the police report on which the prosecutor ’ s decision was based, on 26 February 2008 around 18:00, F.M. was driving a van on the first lane of the road next to the sidewalk. The report further held that, at the zebra crossing in question the traffic light was green for the cars and, according to witness statements, the victim, who was running towards the street, had tried to stop before stepping on the street but he stumbled and he bumped against the right side of the van being dragged underneath it. Without giving any technical details, the report concluded that:

“The technical expertise conducted in the case established that the accident was caused by C.G., who stumbled and stepped on the margin of the sidewalk and could not recover his balance, sliding towards the road. It results from the expert report that F.M. could not avoid the accident because he could not know what was happening on the right side of his van.”

5 . The applicant ’ s request for a counter technical expertise was rejected by the investigative prosecutor.

6 . The applicant contested the prosecutor ’ s decision but his complaint was rejected by the Chief Prosecutor from the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Timiş County Court on 29 December 2008.

7 . The applicant complained against the prosecutors ’ decisions before the Timişoara District Court. He alleged that having in mind the severity of the crime it was necessary at least to commence criminal pursuit and hence to give the opportunity to conduct more thorough expert tests, to verify the contradictions among the witness statements as well as to enable himself, as injured party, to take part in the proceedings. On 22 April 2009 his complaint was allowed by the Timişoara District Court who ordered the re opening of the criminal proceedings. The court found that this decision was required due to numerous contradictions in the witnesses ’ statements, the rejection without reasoning of the applicant ’ s request for a new technical expertise and the fact that essential elements were left unexplained by the investigation such as the speed of the van at the moment of the accident and the colour of the traffic light. The court also held that it was necessary to commence criminal pursuit in the case also in order to be able to rehear all the witnesses under oath and to solve the contradictions in their statements.

8 . The investigation reopened following the above-mentioned court judgment was briefly concluded on 16 November 2011, without conducting any further tests, with the same decision not to commence criminal pursuit in the case due to the lack of fault on behalf of F.M. The applicant ’ s complaint against the prosecutor ’ s decision was finally rejected by the Timişoara District Court on 11 June 2012.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains in substance about the lack of an effective investigation into the accident which caused his son ’ s death.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case compatible with the State ’ s obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the death of the applicant ’ s son ( Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria , no. 23302/03, § 72, 42 May 2011)?