Published on 29 August 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 49458/19 Andrei-IonuÈ› COCÃŽRLÄ‚U against Romania lodged on 6 September 2019 communicated on 18 July 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the criminal proceedings with civil claims brought by the applicant - who is of Roma ethnic origin and who was a minor at the time of the impugned events - against four of his school colleagues because starting from 31 January 2014 the said colleagues had repeatedly accessed his personal Facebook account unlawfully, had changed his access information, had deleted information from his account, had accessed and intercepted his personal correspondence and had sent offensive, threatening and discriminatory messages both to him, namely to another account used by the applicant, and to the applicant’s Facebook friends, some of whom went to the same school as the applicant. As a result, the applicant was assaulted verbally and physically and was threatened by some of his Facebook friends.

In his complaint the applicant accused the four school colleagues of having committed several offences, including unlawful accessing of a computer system, alteration of computer data, violation of the secret of correspondence and incitement to hatred and discrimination, and pointed to statements given before the prosecution authorities by the alleged perpetrators where they acknowledged that they had accessed, tempered with and misused the applicant’s Facebook account. He also pointed to testimonies by witnesses in the case which had confirmed that the applicant had been verbally and physically assaulted and threatened by some of his colleagues because of the messages sent from his hacked account, as well as to the offensive and threatening messages sent to the applicant which had included death threats and racially charged language.

The Olt prosecutor’s office repeatedly discontinued the criminal investigation or omitted to examine some of the offences alleged by the applicant and the Olt County Court repeatedly ordered that the criminal investigation be re-opened. On 23 April 2019 the Olt prosecutor’s office closed the criminal investigation for two of the above-mentioned offences on procedural grounds, omitted to examine expressly the applicant’s complaint concerning the offence of violation of the secret of correspondence and decided to continue the investigation only in so far as the offence of unlawful access to a computer system was concerned. In March 2021 the applicant informed the Court that the prosecution authorities had remained inactive in investigating the case and that the special statutory limitation concerning the alleged perpetrator’s criminal liability was going to take effect in February 2022 for all of the above-mentioned offences.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the national authorities’ inaction and repeated errors and their lack of diligence in investigating the case had made the length of the proceedings excessive and had led to some of the offences he had complained of becoming time ‑ barred. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained either expressly or in substance that by refusing to pursue or extend the investigation into some of the criminal offences he had complained of, by allowing the statutory limitation of the alleged perpetrator’s criminal liability to take effect and by failing to punish those responsible for unlawfully accessing and misusing his private Facebook account the national authorities had violated his right to respect for private and family life and correspondence. Relying on Article 13 taken jointly with Article 8, the applicant alleged that he was not provided with any judicial remedy enabling him to have the alleged perpetrators held accountable for the violation of his right to respect for his private and family life and correspondence. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention taken jointly with Article 6 and in substance with Article 8 the applicant alleged that he was a victim of discrimination by the national authorities because the length of the proceedings and the manner in which they had conducted the investigation in his case had been influenced in a decisive manner by the complaint raised by him before the authorities to the effect that he had been discriminated because of his ethnicity.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the available domestic remedies in so far as his complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings with civil claims brought by him against his school colleagues is concerned? If so, was the length of the criminal proceedings in question in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Were the authorities under a positive obligation to protect the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life and for his correspondence as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention in relation to his school colleagues having allegedly repeatedly accessed his personal Facebook account, changed his access information, deleted information from his account, accessed and intercepted his personal correspondence and sent offensive, threatening and discriminatory messages both to him and to the applicant’s Facebook friends?

If so, did the manner in which the national authorities had pursued the investigation into the applicant’s case, the outcome of the criminal proceedings with civil claims that he had brought against his school colleagues and the authorities’ failure to punish the persons allegedly responsible for unlawfully accessing and misusing his private Facebook account comply with their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the applicant?

3. Did the criminal proceedings with civil claims brought by the applicant before the national authorities against his school colleagues provide him with an effective remedy for the alleged breach of his Convention rights under Article 8, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?

4. Has the length of the proceedings and the manner in which the national authorities had conducted the investigation into the applicant’s case been influenced in a decisive manner by reasons connected to the applicant’s ethnicity? If so, has the applicant suffered discrimination on ethnic grounds in the enjoyment of his Convention rights at the hands of the authorities? If so, was the discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8?