CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2025

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48933/22 Alina-Berta CIOBANU against Romania lodged on 7 October 2022 communicated on 3 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband (C.F.) on 16 August 2014, after he was electrocuted while fishing at a private recreational fishing facility (“ bază de pescuit sportiv ”) owned by   X. The fishing facility consists of two ponds, which were developed by the previous owner before X purchased it in 2011. One of the ponds is crossed by an overhead power line of 20 kV (“ linie electrică aeriană ”), erected on concrete pillars, one of which is located on X’s fishing facility. On 16 August 2014 the public prosecutor commenced an in   rem investigation into C.F.’s death for manslaughter. On 29 June 2017 X became a suspect in the case and 27 August 2019 he was indicted with manslaughter. Between July 2015 and November 2021 the investigation was discontinued three times and subsequently resumed following orders by the hierarchical prosecutor and/or the domestic courts, directing that the investigation continue to establish all the circumstances surrounding C.F.’s death. In 2019 an expert appointed by the prosecutor concluded, among others, that X should have obtained a location permit (“ aviz de amplasament ”) when he carried out works to remove a small island from the fishing facility. On 9 June 2022 the Curtea de Argeș District Court (“the District Court”) confirmed the fourth discontinuation on a finding that there was insufficient evidence that X had been at fault for C.F.’s death and that any doubt must therefore benefit the accused. The District Court noted, among others, that based on the evidence in the case, X was under no legal obligation to obtain a location permit for the pond to be crossed by the overhead power line, as such a permit was only required during the initial development of the pond. Under Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into her husband’s death, which lasted eight years. She alleges, among others, that the investigative authorities failed to comply with the domestic courts’ instructions to take specific investigative steps. She further contends that the domestic court disregarded the expert evidence in the case which concluded that fishing under the overhead power line should have been prohibited and that the fishing facility lacked the requisite permits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see   among others and mutatis mutandis Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v.   Romania [GC], no.   41720/13, §§ 157-71, 25 June 2019 and Prilutskiy v.   Ukraine , no.   40429/08, § 43, 26 February 2015), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   In particular,   a)      did the investigation by the domestic authorities satisfy the requirement of promptness under Article 2 of the Convention (see, among others and mutatis mutandis ,   Dâmbean v.   Romania , no.   42009/04, §§ 43-45, 23 July 2013 and Larie and Others v.   Romania , no. 54153/08, § 97, 25 March 2014)?   b)      did the District Court consider the expert’s opinion in reaching its finding that X was not required to hold a location permit for the fishing facility, and was that finding reasoned?