CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 avril 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 18 May 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 7866/24 Constantin SÎNGURAN against Romania lodged on 28 February 2024 communicated on 28 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicant’s ill ‑ treatment, which was inflicted by a private individual. On 7 July 2016, at around 9 p.m., the applicant and an individual, C.G., were allegedly involved in an altercation, following which C.G. partially severed the applicant’s ear and inflicted a cut to his arm using a sword, as well as further threatening him and breaking his car window. On 8 July 2016 a criminal case was opened for assault or other violence. On 23 March 2017 a forensic medical report established that the applicant had sustained injuries which could have been inflicted on 7 July 2016 by a sharp cutting instrument, possibly a sword, and that they required 16-18 days of medical treatment. On 9 March 2021, C.G. was charged with assault and other violent offences. These charges were later extended to include destruction and making threats. On 21 September 2021, the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Băilești District Court changed the legal classification of the charges and declined jurisdiction in favour of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Dolj County Court. On 19 April 2022, the latter reversed the legal classification back to assault or other violence, threats and destruction, following which the jurisdiction returned to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Băilești District Court. On 18 April 2023, the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against C.G., stating that the evidence did not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had committed the offence. The prosecutor also noted that the five-year statutory limitation period had elapsed. On 29 April 2023, the chief prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings. The chief prosecutor held that, in light of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania (decision nos. 297/2018 and 358/2022) and decision no. 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the prosecutor rightly concluded that the statutory limitation period had elapsed. By decision of 12 October 2023, the Băilești District Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge against the discontinuation of proceedings as ill ‑ founded. The applicant had argued that the prosecutor failed to order a DNA examination which could have determined whether the sword belonged to C.G. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 November 2023. The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that the judicial authorities failed to abide by its positive obligation to conduct an efficient and effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment and to hold the perpetrator accountable. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the State fulfil its positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to establish a legislative and regulatory framework that adequately protects individuals from breaches of their physical and psychological integrity through the enactment of criminal-law provisions and their effective application in practice (see, among other references, X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 179, 2 February 2021)?   In particular, were the legal provisions on the statutory limitation period – especially as applied in the wake of the Constitutional Court’s decision no.   297/2018 of 26   April 2018, which declared unconstitutional the provision governing the interruption of limitation periods in criminal cases – adequate and sufficient to ensure an effective investigation and to bring the perpetrators to account in the present case (see Tudoroaie v. Romania , no.   37665/12, § 91, 15   November 2016)?   2.     Was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, (a) Was the lapse of seven years between the incident in July 2016 and the prosecutorial decision to discontinue the proceedings in April 2023 excessive (see İbrahim Demirtaş v. Turkey , no. 25018/10, §§ 32-39, 28   October 2014)? In particular, were there any justifiable reasons for the prolonged periods during which no investigation measures seem to have been taken, notably between March 2017, when the forensic medical examination was ordered and September 2021, when C.G. was charged?   (b) Did the authorities take all necessary reasonable steps to secure all relevant evidence concerning the incident, including, in particular, DNA evidence (see M.C. and A.C. v. Romania , no. 12060/12, § 111, 12   April 2016)?   The Government are invited to provide the Court with a copy of the file concerning the criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill ‑ treatment.