CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 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 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 14142/23 Elena-Aurelia GRIGORESCU against Romania lodged on 21 March 2023 communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged ineffective investigation into the death on 6 July 2015 of the applicant’s twelve years old son, who was hit by a car on a street near his home. Soon after, an investigation against the driver was opened by the police and discontinued by the prosecutor’s office at two levels of jurisdiction in January and February 2019. After the Bălcești District Court annulled that decision in May 2019, the investigation was again discontinued by the prosecutor on 31 May 2022, confirmed by the Bălcești District Court on 28   December 2022 (decision served on the applicant on 2 February 2023). On the basis of admitted evidence (three expert reports and several witnesses’ statements) it was established that notwithstanding the fact that the driver was driving, at the time of accident, at excessive speed (around 65 km/h, exceeding the legal speed limit of 50 km/h), the speed at which the impact could have been avoided was around 38 km/h. The domestic authorities therefore found that notwithstanding the driver’s conduct, he had not caused the accident which would have occurred even if the speed had been below 50   km/h. Accordingly, it held that the victim, who had ran while crossing the street at a place that had not been marked as a crosswalk, bore the entire responsibility for the accident. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome, as well as the length and alleged shortcomings in the investigation, which gave no consideration to a question that she had raised, namely whether the victim would have died had the speed of the car been 50 km/h or less. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia   [GC], nos.   37685/10   and   22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018) and having regard to the State’s duty to safeguard the right to life (see   Nicolae   Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 157-171, 25   June 2019), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? In particular, did the investigation address the issue whether the death would have been avoided if the driver had driven at a speed of 50   km/h or less?   2.     Did the investigation by the domestic authorities satisfy the requirement of promptness under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, was the lapse of three and a half years between the accident, in July 2015, and the first prosecutorial decision, in January 2019, excessive? Were there any reasons for the long periods in which no investigation measures seem to have been undertaken, such as the period between May 2019, when the first   prosecutor decision to discontinue the case was quashed in court, and November 2021 when an additional expert report was produced?