CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 157 November 2012 Mocanu and Others v. Romania - 45886/07, 32431/08 and 10865/09 Judgment 13.11.2012 [Section III] Article 2 Article 2-1 Effective investigation Lack of investigation into death of man during June 1990 demonstrations against Romanian regime: violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 29 April 2013] Facts – In June 1990 the Romanian Government decided to put an end to the occupation, of several weeks’ duration, of University Square by demonstrators protesting against the regime then in place. On 13   June 1990 the police and gendarmerie intervened and arrested numerous demonstrators; in consequence, the demonstrations increased. The army having been sent into the most sensitive areas, shots were fired from inside the Ministry of the Interior, which was surrounded by demonstrators. Mr   Velicu-Valentin Mocanu, the first applicant’s husband, was shot in the head and subsequently died. The criminal investigation into the crackdown begin in 1990 with a very large number of individual files, which were subsequently joined, then transferred to the military prosecutor’s office in 1997. The investigation conducted by that body was delayed and interrupted by several procedural developments, so that in July 2011 the proceedings concerning the death of the first applicant’s husband had still not been completed. Law – Article 2 ( procedural aspect ): An investigation had been opened automatically shortly after the events of June 1990. The Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis enabled it to take into consideration only the period after 20   June 1994, the date of the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Romania. In 1994 the case had been pending before the military prosecutor’s office. The investigation had been entrusted to military prosecutors, who, like some of the accused, were service personnel subject to the principle of hierarchical subordination. The shortcomings in the investigation had been acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves. However, the subsequent investigation had failed to remedy all of these defects. With regard to the obligation to involve the victims’ relatives in the proceedings, the first applicant had been informed of the progress of the investigation only in 2000, and had been heard by the prosecutor for the first time in 2007, that is, seventeen years after the events in question; nor had she been informed of progress following the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s final decision of 17   December 2007 ordering that the case be sent back to the prosecutor’s office. Thus, the first applicant’s interest in participating in the investigation had not been sufficiently protected. In addition, the importance of what was at stake for Romanian society, namely the right of the numerous victims to know what had happened, implying the right to an effective judicial investigation and possible entitlement to compensation, ought to have incited the domestic authorities to deal with the case promptly and without unnecessary delay so as to prevent any appearance of impunity for certain actions. Further, on 6   July 2011 the first applicant’s case was still pending before the prosecutor’s office, that is, more than twenty years later, following two remittals ordered by the country’s highest court for procedural shortcomings or flaws. The procedural obligations arising from Article   2 could hardly be considered to have been met where victims or their families were unable to obtain access to proceedings before an independent court tribunal called on to determine the facts. It followed that the domestic authorities had not acted with the required level of diligence in respect of the first applicant. Conclusion : violation in respect of the first applicant (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. The Court also found no violation of Article   3 under its procedural aspect in respect of one of the applicants, and a violation of Article 6 §   1 in respect of the complaint by the applicant association. (See also Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania , 33810/07 and 18817/08, 24   May 2011, Information Note   141)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes