CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 27 November 2018   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 75614/14 and 3795/15 Victor Laurențiu MARIN against Romania and Mihail MIHĂILESCU against Romania lodged on 20 November 2014 and 8 February 2015 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE A.     Application no. 75614/14 originated in criminal proceedings - joined by the applicant as a civil party - opened by the authorities into the death of his father after a car accident. The applicant alleged that the criminal investigation into the circumstances of the accident and the pre-trial chamber judge proceedings which confirmed the public prosecutor’s decision of non-prosecution of the alleged perpetrator were ineffective and excessively lengthy in breach of the guarantees set out by Article 2 of the Convention. The applicant alleged further that the pre-trial chamber judge proceedings were unfair and breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention because they took place in chambers, without the parties being summoned, and the judge determined the victim’s responsibility for the accident even though the said judge did not act as a trial court. Lastly, the applicant alleged that he did not have access to an effective remedy for his complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention because the appeal procedure provided for by the relevant procedure rules against the public prosecutor’s decision of non-prosecution could not have ended with the case being sent to trial. B.     Application no. 3795/15 originated in criminal proceedings with civil claims brought by the applicant against a private party for perjury. The applicant alleged that the pre-trial chamber judge proceedings which confirmed the public prosecutor’s decision of non-prosecution of the alleged perpetrator were unfair and breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention because they took place in chambers, without the parties being present or aware of the other parties’ submissions, and without him being able to rebut the arguments submitted by the accused. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In application no. 75614/14, did the criminal proceedings, including the pre-trial chamber judge proceedings, conducted by the authorities into the circumstances of the applicant’s father’s death satisfy the conditions of adequacy and promptness as required under the procedural head of Article 2 of the Convention? 2.     In applications nos. 75614/14 and 3795/15, did the applicants have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the examination of their cases? In particular, did the pre-trial chamber judge proceedings respect the principles of publicity, and/or orality, and/or equality of arms, and/or of adversarial proceedings in view of the fact that: (i) the proceedings took place in chambers; and/or (ii) without the parties being present and/or aware of the other parties’ submissions; and/or (iii) without them being able to rebut the arguments submitted by the other parties; and/or (iv) the pre-trial chamber judge determined the criminal liability of the parties involved in the accident even though the said judge did not sit as a trial court? 3.     In application no. 75614/14, did the pre-trial chamber judge proceedings provided the applicant with an effective remedy for his complaints, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?