CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 September 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38191/22 Daniel PETCU against Romania lodged on 26 July 2022 communicated on 13 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s father was recognised by administrative decision issued in 1990 by the national competent authority as a “political detainee” with respect to an imprisonment period running from 29 July 1975 to 9 May 1977. Based on this recognition, he was awarded by administrative decision the benefits provided by the Legislative Decree no.   118/1990 which granted certain rights to those who had been persecuted by the dictatorial regime established starting with 6 March 1945. After the entry into force of Law no. 232/2020, which extended the benefits provided by the Legislative Decree no. 118/1990 also to the children of the political detainees, the applicant and his two other siblings each lodged a claim with the competent local authorities in order to receive these benefits. While the applicant’s siblings both received favourable administrative decisions granting them these benefits, the applicant’s claim was dismissed by administrative decision on ground that his father’s detention following a conviction for disobedience was not political. The applicant’s judicial challenge against this administrative decision was dismissed by a decision of 25   May 2021 of the Teleorman County Court. The decision of the County Court mentioned that it could be appealed. However, the applicant’s appeal on points of law was dismissed as inadmissible by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 9 December 2021 (delivered on 28 April 2022). The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention of arbitrary interpretation of evidence and legislation by the domestic courts, in breach of the Constitutional Court and High Court of Cassation and Justice decisions on this matter and of the principle of legal certainty by infringing the final decision issued in favour of his father. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the dismissal of the applicant’s claim by decisions of 9 December 2021 issued by Bucharest Court of Appeal and of 25 May 2021, issued by the Teleorman County Court despite a final administrative decision to the effect that the applicant’s father was a political detainee in breach of the principle of legal certainty and thus of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the reasons and the outcome of the decision of 25 May 2021 of the Teleorman County Court, has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention and/or to Article 1 of Protocol no.   12 to the Convention (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, 29 November 2016; Albu and Others v. Romania , nos.   34796/09 and 63 others, 10 May 2012, and Beeler v. Switzerland [GC], no.   78630/12, §§ 93-94, 11   October 2022)?