CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 12372/24 Olandeza MUNTEANU against Romania lodged on 12 April 2024 communicated on 5 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant’s son, who was hit by a car while driving his scooter on a public roadway, on 21 April 2016. Soon after the accident, the police opened an investigation against the driver, P.D.V., for manslaughter. Relying on three expert reports produced in April 2017, October 2018 and May 2019 respectively, the investigation was discontinued by the prosecutor’s office in November 2020, after the prosecutor determined that no criminal act had been committed and that the accident was entirely attributable to the victim. On 27 April 2021, the Târgu Jiu District Court upheld the applicant’s complaint against the decisions to dismiss the case, sending the case back to the prosecutor. After the investigation resumed, three additional forensic reports were drawn up, the first of which concluded that the driver of the car could have avoided the accident if she had not exceeded the speed limit and had promptly made use of the brakes, whereas the other two came to a different conclusion, considering that the impact with the scooter could not have been avoided even if the driver of the car had been driving within the legal speed limit. On the basis of the expert reports, it was established that P.D.V. was driving at an excessive speed of approximately 79 km/h, exceeding the legal speed limit of 50 km/h. The investigation was again discontinued by the prosecutor in May 2023. On 13 October 2023, the Târgu Jiu District Court upheld the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decisions of May 2023 and ordered a trial to begin. By final decision of 16 January 2024 (served on the applicant on 7   February 2024), the Gorj County Court upheld an appeal lodged by P.D.V., rejecting the applicant’s complaint and confirming the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the proceedings. The County Court held that the accident was entirely attributable to the victim and that the victim’s death would have obviously occurred even if P.D.V. had respected the speed limit. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome and alleged shortcomings in the investigation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Since 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 and 126, 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, §§ 151-71, 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 sufficiently consider whether the death could have been avoided if the driver had driven at the maximum speed limit 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 four and a half years between the accident in April 2016 and then first prosecutorial decision in November 2020, excessive? Were there any reasons for the long periods in which no significant investigation measures seem to have been undertaken, such as the period between April 2017 when the first expert report was produced and October 2018 when the second expert report was produced, as well as the period between May 2019 when the third expert report was produced and the decision to discontinue the case in November 2020?   The Government is invited to provide the Court with a copy of the file concerning the criminal proceedings into the allegations of manslaughter against P.D.V.