CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A68DB03 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD92D5E13 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9742D089 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1E59D11B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s39C984 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1B18E637 { width:29.42pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5D4358A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION             CASE OF LĂCĂTUŞ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Application no. 12694/04)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   13 November 2012     FINAL   13/02/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Egbert Myjer,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ján Šikuta,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 12694/04) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Romanian nationals, Ms Voichiţa (Rostaş) Lăcătuş, Ms Speranţa-Lămâiţa Rostaş and Ms Rada-Codruţa Rostaş (“the applicants”), on 5 March 2004. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr C. Cojocariu and Mr   T.   Alexandridis, lawyers practising in London and Budapest, respectively. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     As Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case   (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court), the President of the Chamber appointed Mrs Kristina Pardalos to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article   26   § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of   the Rules of Court). 4.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that the destruction of their home during a riot on 20 September 1993, and the ensuing consequences, disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles   3, 6, 8, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which guarantee, inter alia , freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, access to a court for a fair determination of civil rights and obligations, the right to respect for private and family life and the home, the protection of property and freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms. 5.     On 6 January 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 §   1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants were born in 1970, 1990 and 1994 respectively and live in Staden, Belgium. 7.     The facts of the case, as described in the judgment of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2) , nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts) and as submitted by the parties in respect of their individual situations, may be summarised as follows. A.     The incident on 20 September 1993 8.     The first applicant, Ms Voichiţa (Rostaş) Lăcătuş, was the common law partner of Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, one of the three Roma killed during the violent events of 20 September 1993 in Hădăreni. The second and third applicants, Ms Speranţa-Lămâiţa Rostaş and Ms Rada-Codruţa Rostaş, are the daughters of the first applicant and of Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş. Prior to 20 September 1993 they all lived in Mrs Cătălina Lăcătuş’s house. Mrs Cătălina Lăcătuş was Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş’ mother. Their home was destroyed during the events and has not been rebuilt to date. 9.     On the evening of 20 September 1993 a row broke out in a bar in the centre of the village of Hădăreni (Mureş district). Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, his brother, along with another Roma man, began to argue with a non-Roma man. The verbal confrontation developed into a physical one which ended with the death of the non-Roma’s son. The three Roma then fled the scene and sought refuge in a neighbour’s house. 10.     Soon afterwards an angry mob arrived at the house where the three Roma were hiding and demanded that they come out. Among the crowd were members of the local police force who had heard of the incident. When the brothers refused to come out, the crowd set fire to the house. As the fire engulfed the house, the brothers tried to flee but were caught by the mob, who beat and kicked them with vineyard stakes and clubs. The two brothers died later that evening. The third Roma remained in the house, where he died in the fire. It appears that the police officers present did nothing to stop these attacks – on the contrary, they called for and allowed the destruction of all Roma property in Hădăreni. 11.     Later that evening, the villagers decided to vent their anger on all the Roma living in the village and proceeded to burn Roma homes and property in Hădăreni, including stables, cars and goods. The riots continued until the following day. In all, thirteen Roma houses were destroyed. 12.     By letters of 30 July 2003 and 19 April 2004 the first applicant informed the Court that in the aftermath of the events she had married Mr   Petru (Dîgală) Lăcătuş and that she and her family had been left homeless and had received no aid from the authorities. She also stated that she had been forced to share an apartment located at no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş with sixteen other individuals until 2002. In addition, she claimed that her younger daughter, the third applicant, had developed a speech impediment as a result of the fear experienced by the first applicant, who had been pregnant with her at the time of the events. 13.     On an unspecified date the applicants submitted documents that attest that on 23 February 1994 M.F.Z. asked the Cheţani Mayor’s Office to provide her and twelve other people, including the first two applicants, with accommodation and protection. The documents further attest that on 6   June   1995 the first applicant and M.F.Z., another victim of the events of September 1993, opened a private business registered at no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş. They also submitted four birth certificates attesting that the four children the first applicant had with Mr Petru (Dîgală) Lăcătuş were born between 1996 and 2003 in Luduş. 14.     By letter of 20 January 2004 the first applicant informed the Court that on the night of the events she had sought refuge together with the rest of the Lăcătuş family in the garden of their home. At the time, she had been two months pregnant with her younger daughter, the third applicant. She had been very scared and had remained hidden in the corn in the garden while she had witnessed the villagers burning down her home. Afterwards, according to her, both the villagers and the police officers accompanying them had started looking for her and the rest of the family but they had not managed to find them. When she had fled her home she had become separated from Speranţa-Lămîiţa, the second applicant, who had been three years old at the time. Eventually, she had found out that her daughter was alive because she had been saved by Mr Petru (Dîgală) Lăcătuş and she had been reunited with her daughter the following day. The first applicant also stated that her and her daughters’ home had never been rebuilt by the authorities, that they had been faced with many hardships but the authorities had failed to help them and that they had been forced to leave the village and settle elsewhere in the country. She further stated that she and her daughters had developed a number of medical problems as a result of the events of 20 September 1993, in particular headaches, anaemia, and heart and kidney problems. 15.     By letter of 19 April 2004 Mr Petru (Dîgală) Lăcătuş informed the Court that in the aftermath of the events and until 2001 sixteen members of the Lăcătuş family, including the three applicants, had lived at no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş. According to him, they had all been living in a small two-room rental apartment. 16.     By letter of 8 March 2006 the first applicant informed the Court that she was now living in Belgium. 17.     By letter of 11 August 2010 Mr Petru (Dîgală) Lăcătuş reiterated his statement that between 1994 and 2001 the entire Lăcătuş family, numbering sixteen individuals, including the applicants, had been living in a two-room apartment at no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş. According to him, the living conditions had been overcrowded, they had lacked basic necessities like food and water most of the time and they had not received any support from the authorities. He further stated that between 2000 and 2004 he and his family – numbering eight individuals in total, including the applicants – had moved to no. 30, 8th of March Street, Luduş. He also contended that on an unspecified date in 2005 he and the applicants had moved to Belgium. That same year they had been granted political asylum by the Belgian authorities and in 2008 they became Belgian citizens. 18.     According to the information and supporting documents submitted by the Government, on an unspecified date in 2010, the first, second and third applicants were registered with the Romanian Population Register Office as living at house no. 156 in the village of Voiniceni, Mureş starting from 1997, 1996 and 1994, respectively. In addition, starting from September 2001 the three applicants moved to no. 30, 8th of March Street, Luduş. The documents also stated that the first applicant had not opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the final domestic judgments granting her child allowance for the second applicant. B.     The proceedings before the domestic courts 19.     On 19 January 1995, during the course of the criminal investigation opened in respect of the events of September 1993, the first applicant gave a statement as a witness to the Târgu-Mureş Military Prosecutor’s Office. According to her statement, her address was no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş. In her written statement she stated that she had not been married to Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, but they had had two children together. Moreover, they had both lived in Mrs Cătălina Lăcătuş’ house, which had been burned down during the incident. Furthermore, she had suffered damage because several of her belongings had been destroyed in the fire, but she refused to become a civil party to the proceedings. Lastly, she stated that although her legal rights had been explained to her she only wished to take part in the criminal proceedings as a witness. 20.     On 12 January 2001, following the discontinuance of the criminal investigation against the police officers involved in the incident and the criminal conviction and sentencing of twelve civilians, the Mureş County Court delivered its judgment in the civil case. The court noted that the victims had sought pecuniary damages for the destruction of the houses and their contents, as well as non-pecuniary damages. The court further noted that, during the events of 20 September 1993, eighteen houses belonging to the Roma population in Hădăreni had been totally or partially destroyed and three Roma had been killed, a criminal court having found twelve villagers guilty of these acts. Basing its decision on an expert report, the court awarded pecuniary damages for those houses which had not been rebuilt in the meantime, and maintenance allowances for the children of some of the Roma killed during the riots. On the basis of an expert report, the court awarded pecuniary damages in respect of the partial or total destruction of the houses of six Roma. The court rejected the other victims’ claim for pecuniary damages in respect of the rebuilt houses, finding, on the basis of the same expert report, that their value was either the same or even higher than the original buildings. It further refused to award any of the victims damages in respect of belongings and furniture, on the grounds that they had not submitted documents confirming the value of their assets and were not registered as taxpayers with incomes that would have made them capable of acquiring such valuable assets. The court stated the following in that regard: “... The damage suffered because of the destruction of the chattels and furniture has not been substantiated. The civil parties consider that their own statements, the lists of the belongings destroyed submitted to the court and the statements of the other witnesses who are also civil parties should be enough to substantiate their claims. Having regard to the context in which the destruction occurred and to the fact that all civil parties suffered losses, the court will dismiss as obviously insincere the statements made by each civil party in relation to the losses suffered by the other civil parties. Last but not least, the type of belongings allegedly destroyed and the quantity of goods allegedly in the possession of each civil party show a much more prosperous situation than that which a family of average income could have. Neither civil party adduced proof of having an income such as to allow them to have acquired so many goods. As noted previously, the parties had no income at all. Moreover, the shape of the houses, the materials used for their construction and the number of rooms show an evident lack of financial resources. It should be stressed in this context that only work can be the source of income, and not events such as the present one...” 21.     The county court’s judgment of 12 January 2001 did not acknowledge the applicants’ civil party status and their names were not mentioned in the said judgment. M.F.Z., the sister of two of the Roma killed in the events of September 1993 and the wife of the third; as well as P.D.R., the common law partner of one of the Roma killed, were party to the proceedings. 22.     Following the victims’ and some of the accused’s appeal against the judgment of 12 January 2001, the Mureş Court of Appeal quashed the said judgment on procedural grounds on 17 October 2001 and ordered a retrial. It held that: the hearings had taken place in the absence of the accused and their lawyers; one of the victims, A. M., had not been summoned; the public prosecutor had not been given leave to address the court; a number of expert reports ordered by the court had not been completed; and confusion had been created as to the number and names of the victims and their children. Consequently, it concluded that these errors rendered the proceedings null and void. The judgment did not acknowledge the applicants’ civil party status and their names were not mentioned in it. 23.     By an interlocutory judgment of 29 January 2002 the Mureş County Court ordered that the first applicant be summoned to the proceedings in order to allow her to submit her children’s birth certificates. According to the interlocutory judgment the applicant’s address at the time was no. 30, 8th of March Street, Luduş. 24.     On 19 February 2002 the Mureş County Court heard the first applicant. She stated that she had been Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş’s common law partner and she had had two children with him, the second and third applicants, although the birth certificates of the said children did not bear their father’s name. She further contented that she intended to claim child allowance for her two children. She acknowledged that during the criminal proceedings she had renounced any civil claims and had declared that she only wanted to be a witness in the proceedings. By an interlocutory judgment delivered the same day the Mureş County Court allowed the public prosecutor’s office and the accused’s motions and held that the first applicant had the status of witness and not civil party to the proceedings. 25.     At a hearing on 16 April 2002 the public prosecutor’s office motioned the court to include the second applicant as a civil party to the proceedings in order to be able to examine her mother’s request for child allowance. By an interlocutory judgment delivered the same day the Mureş County Court allowed the prosecutor’s action and ordered that the first applicant be summoned before the court as a representative for the second applicant, now a civil party to the proceedings. 26.     At a hearing on 3 September 2002 the first applicant, as representative of the second applicant, stated that her deceased common law partner had had a monthly income of ROL 300,000 lei (ROL) (approximately 9 euros (EUR)) and that he had spent approximately ROL 75,000 (approximately EUR 2) of it on the second applicant. Moreover, she stated that she entrusted the court to determine the amount of the monthly child allowance to be paid by the accused. Lastly, she contended that she also wanted to claim a monthly child allowance for the third applicant. 27.     The Mureş County Court delivered its judgment following the retrial in respect of the civil limb of the proceedings on 12 May 2003.   Basing its decision on an expert report drafted in 1999 and updated in 2003, the court ordered the civilians found guilty by the criminal court of the destruction of the victims’ homes to pay damages to some of them, but rejected the victims’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage, on the grounds that the crimes committed had not been of a nature to produce non-pecuniary damage. The court noted that M.F.Z. had been the wife of one of the Roma killed in the events and ordered the accused to pay her ROL 60,000,000 (approximately EUR 1,700) in compensation for pecuniary damage. In addition, the court noted that both M.F.Z. and P.D.R. had also claimed monthly child allowances for their minor sons on account of their fathers’ deaths, to be paid until the age of eighteen years old, and acknowledged that the minors were entitled to monthly allowances of ROL 312,500 (approximately EUR   9) to be paid jointly by the accused. 28.     In respect of the first applicant, the court noted that she had been Mr   Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş’s common law partner. It also noted that the first applicant had given birth to the second applicant in 1990 and that her birth certificate bore only her mother’s name. It also noted that at the initial stage of the criminal investigation the first applicant had been heard as a witness and had stated that she did not wish to pursue any civil claims. During the re-examination of the civil proceedings, the public prosecutor’s office had requested, relying on the applicable civil procedure rules, that the second applicant be granted a child allowance as civil damages. The first applicant had testified before the court that her former partner had been running a registered small business and had been earning EUR 9 a month at the time of his death. The amount spent by the deceased on the second applicant each month had been approximately EUR 2. The first applicant had motioned the court to award child allowance for the third applicant as well. The latter had been born in 1994 and her birth certificate had also only borne her mother’s name. 29.     The court acknowledged that the second applicant had been supported by Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş for more than three years and that, like the children of M.F.Z. and P.D.R., she was entitled to a monthly child allowance of EUR 9. The court dismissed the first applicant’s claim for a child allowance in favour of the third applicant on the grounds that she had been born after Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş’s death and her mother had not made any efforts to determine the paternity of the child. The first applicant appealed against the judgment on her and her daughters’ behalf, but failed to provide reasons for her appeal. 30.     On 30 September 2003 the first applicant was summoned to appear as a civil party at a hearing of the Târgu-Mureş Court of Appeal on 22   October 2003. 31.     By a judgment of 27 February 2004 the Târgu-Mureş Court of Appeal acknowledged the applicants’ status of civil parties to the proceedings and partly allowed their appeal. The court recalled that, under the combined provisions of the Romanian Civil Code and the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure, it was bound by the ruling of the criminal court. Referring to recent publications by Romanian authors in the field of civil law and the Court’s case of Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (16   September 1996, Reports 1996-IV), the court found the following: “By their behaviour, the accused infringed the property rights of the complainants, for which pecuniary damages have already been awarded; however, some of the civil parties should also be awarded damages from a non-pecuniary point of view. Some of the civil parties were deprived emotionally, as a result of the damage sustained, of the security which they had felt in the destroyed houses, of the comfort they had enjoyed as a result of the facilities of the houses, all these movable and immovable goods being the result of their work, which guaranteed them a normal standard of living, having regard to their personalities... As shown above, the accused committed the crimes in a state of provocation, which led the court to apply the provisions of Article 73 of the Criminal Code [regarding extenuating circumstances]. For this precise reason, the civil parties enumerated below are entitled to a certain amount of damages, but not the amount requested...” 32.     The court awarded the first applicant ROL   25,000,000 (approximately EUR 700) on the grounds that she had sustained emotional damage and had felt insecure as a result of the events of September 1993. It awarded M.F.Z. ROL 100,000,000 (approximately EUR 2,800) because of the emotional and psychological damage she had suffered after she was deprived of the safety of her home and was forced to leave her community. Moreover, the court noted that M.F.Z. was the sister of two of the deceased and the wife of the third. It also awarded P.D.R. ROL 25,000,000 (EUR   700) for the psychological damage she had suffered as a result of the accused’s coordinated actions. In addition, it upheld the remaining provisions of the judgment of 12 May 2003. The first applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. Together with the other victims she asked the court to increase the amount of the damages award, in particular as regards non-pecuniary damage, and to determine the amounts by examining each individual case separately in order to avoid arbitrary decisions. She argued that the three widows who had lost their husbands during the events of September 1993, M.F.Z., P.D.R. and herself, should have been treated in the same way by the lower court on account of the fact that following the violent events they had all remained single parents of minor children and the first applicant’s second child had been born an orphan. However, the courts had awarded very different amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage to three similarly situated victims without providing reasons for doing so. Moreover, the lower court had failed to make an award to the minor children in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even though they had been victims of the events and had been civil parties to the proceedings, represented by their mothers. Lastly, the first applicant claimed ROL 1,000,000,000 (approximately EUR 28,700) in respect of pecuniary damage on her own and the second applicant’s behalf. 33.     By a final judgment of 25 February 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the victims’ and the first applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of the lower court. It held that the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the evidence and determined the value of the pecuniary damages awarded to each individual on the basis of expert reports. It was clear that the victims had also suffered non-pecuniary damage. In determining the amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed that the offenders had been provoked by the victims. Moreover, the victims had not proved that the burning of their homes had also destroyed their movable property. The value of the moveable property and number of items claimed by the victims was much higher than what they could have afforded, given that most of them had not been gainfully employed. In addition, they had lacked the necessary storage space for the large number of items they claimed to have been destroyed by fire. It was also to be noted that the Romanian Government had rebuilt the victims’ homes and their value was now higher than prior to the incident. 34.     Following the conclusion of the domestic proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court, some of the individuals who were party to the proceedings before the Court in the cases of Moldovan and Others v.   Romania (friendly settlement), nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, 5 July 2005, and Moldovan and Others (no. 2) , cited above, opened two separate enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments delivered by the domestic courts. 35.     On 25 August 2005 certain of the villagers intervened in the two separate enforcement proceedings pertaining to the said judgments. They argued that following the judgments of the Court and the payment by the State of the just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage ordered by the Court, the victims’ claims against the State and private individuals had been fully satisfied. 36.     By two judgments (nos. 342 and 343) of 27 April 2006 the Luduş District Court allowed in part the villagers’ action contesting the enforcement of the domestic judgments awarding the individuals of Roma origin civil damages following the events of 20 September 1993, on the grounds that the said damages had been incorporated into the sums awarded by the European Court of Human Rights as just satisfaction or as part of the friendly settlement agreements accepted by the applicants following the Moldovan and Others judgments, cited above. However, it dismissed the villagers’ action in respect of the child allowance awarded by the domestic courts to one of the minor children affected by the violent events of September 1993. The interveners appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgments. 37.     On an unspecified date the two separate enforcement proceedings were joined. 38.     By a final judgment of 19 January 2007 the Mureş County Court dismissed the interveners’ appeal on points of law as ill-founded. The applicants were not party to the proceedings. C.     Reconstruction of the houses destroyed during the events and the victims’ living conditions 39.     By decision no. 636 of 19 November 1993, the Romanian government allocated a total of ROL 25,000,000 for the reconstruction of the eighteen houses destroyed by fire on 20 September 1993. The government decided that the funds could also be used as financial assistance for the families affected in order to help them replace items which were strictly necessary and had been destroyed during the fire. However, only four houses were rebuilt with this money and none of the families received financial assistance. 40.     By a government decision of 30 November 1993, a commission for the coordination of the reconstruction of the houses was created. Members of this commission included the mayor of Cheţani and his deputy. 41.     By letter of 30 June 1994 addressed to the government, the prefect of Mureş indicated that the additional sum of ROL 53,000,000 was needed to rebuild the remaining ten houses. 42.     By decision no. 773 of 25 November 1994, the government granted the additional sum of ROL 32,000,000 from funds which had been earmarked for natural disasters occurring between March and September 1994. Four other houses were rebuilt. However, some of the reconstructed houses suffered from building defects. 43.     In a letter addressed to the prefect in 1995, the mayor of Cheţani (of which Hădăreni is a part), G.G., a member of the reconstruction commission, reported that, of the fourteen houses destroyed by the fire, eight had been rebuilt or almost rebuilt. Concerning the remaining six houses, he reported that three of them posed “special problems”: in particular, one of the houses to be rebuilt was on land near the family of the non-Roma victim (Cheţan Crăciun), who refused to have Gypsy families living close by. Another problem mentioned by the mayor was that of the house of the late mother of two of the Roma who had died during the events of 1993. It appeared that after the events the Lăcătuş family had moved to the city of Luduş, so the mayor proposed that a house be built for them at a location of their choice. D.     The steps taken by the Government following the judgments in the cases of Moldovan and Others (friendly settlement and no. 2), cited above, with the aim of improving the victims’ living conditions 44.     On 4 May 2006 the Government published in Official Journal No.   385 the Development Programme for the Community of Hădăreni for 2006-2008 (“the Programme”) which had previously been adopted. The Programme allocated 3,487,000 new Romanian lei (RON) (EUR 1,007,803) to a number of areas, such as education (including public awareness as to health and legal rights), combating discrimination, prevention of domestic violence or community disturbance, professional training, employment, culture, the development of infrastructure and so on. 45.     On 17 July 2007 responsibility for the implementation of the Programme was transferred to the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP”), which in turn contributed 10% of the total sum allocated for the 2007-08 period. The National Agency for Roma (“the NAR”) was charged with the supervision and appraisal of the implementation process. 46.     The NAR, the Cheţani Mayor’s Office and a local initiative group discussed the priority tasks that needed to be performed, taking into account the available budget. 47.     By the end of 2007 six houses affected by the events of 1993 had been rebuilt inside. 48.     According to a report of 6 October 2008 concerning the prospects for the Hădăreni Roma community, Government Decision No. 734 of 11   July 2007 had allocated RON 900,000 (EUR 287,595) for the implementation of the Programme in 2007. The money was used to build twelve kilometres of paved roads, to rehabilitate six houses, to install a heating system for the local school and to partially refurbish the school and the local activities centre. 49.     Between September 2006 and December 2007 a number of awareness raising campaigns, workshops and training sessions were organised with the involvement of the local Roma community, the authorities, the media and the police force. They focused mainly on combating discrimination, access to public health services and to education, inter-ethnic communication and obtaining professional qualifications for professions in demand on the labour market. 50.     By Government Decision No. 980 of 29 August 2008, the Government allocated RON 2,160,000 (EUR 611,898) to the NAR in order for the Agency to be able to continue the implementation of the Programme. The UNDP also contributed RON 133,488 (EUR 37,815) during 2008. 51.     The activities performed over the course of the year included: the complete rehabilitation of six houses; the drafting of building plans for three other houses, a medical centre and an industrial building; the signing of a contract for the building of a local school; and the refurbishment of the local activities centre. 52.     According to appraisal reports of 13 and 17 March, 2 and 29 April and 6 and 12 May 2009 the local kindergarten, the local activities centre and the local school had all been entirely rebuilt and all the building defects previously identified had been repaired. 53.     It was also noted that the local authorities had drafted a detailed action plan for the year 2009, which included as a first stage the encouragement of inter-ethnic and social dialogue, of community cooperation and of the development of economic activity in the region. 54.     The second stage of the plan concerned the building of three new homes, the rehabilitation of ten others, encouraging profitable activities in the region and the organisation of awareness raising seminars in respect of themes such as post-ethnic-conflict regions. 55.     The above-mentioned action plan for 2009 extended the time frame of the initial Programme until 31 December 2009. The necessary budget was estimated at RON 1,750,045 (EUR 414,702), with the Government and the UNDP providing the necessary financial support. 56.     On an unspecified date the applicants submitted before the Court a memorandum drafted by the European Roma Rights Centre critically assessing the steps undertaken by the Government towards the implementation of, inter alia , the Moldovan and Others judgments, cited above. According to the said memorandum, the implementation of the Program had been ineffective and plagued with delays as a result of administrative incompetence and a failure to allocate the required funds in a timely manner. More than sixteen years after the events the housing problems of the Roma victims had still not been adequately dealt with. Only six or seven of the approximately eighteen houses that had been destroyed during the events had been fully rebuilt. Even in those cases, the work carried out had been poor and had lacked appropriate supervision. Moreover, the local economic plan had not been implemented and thus the Roma had not been afforded the opportunity of acquiring some basic vocational skills that would enable them to find employment. Lastly, the public information campaigns, civic education and activities aimed at combating discrimination had not yielded any tangible results. They had been treated by the authorities as “one-off” activities that had been concluded by the end of 2006, although similar activities had been budgeted for 2007-2008. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS 57.     The relevant legal provisions, including the relevant provisions of the former Romanian Civil Code, the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, Law No. 188/2000 concerning enforcement officers, and the relevant case-law, are set forth in the judgments in the cases of Moldovan and Others (no. 2) , cited above, §§   79-85; Ursu v. Romania (dec.), no.   58670/00, 3 May 2005; Kalanyos v. Romania (dec.), no.   57884/00, 9   December 2003; Fociac v.   Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3   February   2005; and Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15   June   2006. A.     Civil Code 58.     Articles 998 and 999 of the former Civil Code provide that any person who has suffered damage can seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who has intentionally or negligently caused it. B.     Code of Civil Procedure Article 399 § 1 “Any person, including any person who has suffered a damage as a result of enforcement proceedings or any acts of enforcement, can intervene in the enforcement proceedings. At the same time (...) the enforcement proceedings can be intervened in (...) when an enforcement officer refuses to carry out an act of enforcement as required by the applicable legal provisions.” C.     Memorandum prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court on 16 August 2011 assessing the action plan provided by the Romanian authorities on 15 June 2011 in respect of the enforcement of the general measures in the Moldovan and Others (friendly settlement and no. 2) judgments “The information provided by the Romanian authorities shows that many activities related to the prevention of discrimination against Roma and Roma integration were carried out in 2006 and that other measures, in particular in the field of housing and infrastructure rehabilitation were carried out in 2007 and 2008. It appears however from the information provided by the Romanian authorities and by the non-governmental organisations that there were delays in the transfer of funds and that the last instalment anticipated for 2008 was never transferred to the UNDP. In 2009, the authorities expressed their intention to continue the Programme in 2009 and 2010. However ... the measures envisaged for 2009 (apart from those in respect of which implementation began in 2008) were not implemented due to lack of funds, a situation which appears to have recurred in 2010. In 2009 and 2010 the authorities focused mainly on the impact assessment of the measures already taken and gave consideration to the follow-up to this Programme. This work resulted in some positive findings concerning the good quality of the interethnic relations within the Hădăreni community ... but equally in the identification of deficiencies in the implementation of the Programme and also in the setting-up of a working group at ministerial level, in order to remedy them. The establishment of this working group under the co-ordination of the Private Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is to be welcomed. This being said, given the government’s findings ... according to which the undertakings given by the Romanian authorities before the European Court have not been entirely fulfilled and the fact that the judgments in question became final more than five years ago, it is essential that the authorities intensify their efforts for the implementation of the outstanding measures without delay ...” D.     Decision of 13-14 September 2011 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the enforcement of the Moldovan and Others (friendly settlement and no. 2) judgments 59.     The deputies welcomed in particular the envisaged establishment of an interdepartmental working group placed under the Chairmanship of the Deputy (Vice) Prime-Minister responsible for the periodic reassessment of the situation with a view to indentifying and adopting additional measures, if necessary. They also invited the Romanian authorities to keep the Committee of Ministers regularly informed of the progress achieved in the implementation of the action plan. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION 60.     The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the destruction of their homes and the discrimination they had been subjected to by the authorities had deprived them of the use of their home and belongings, forcing them to live in very poor and cramped conditions. Article 3 reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 8 of the Convention provides as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A.     Admissibility 1.     The third applicant’s lack of victim status   (a)     Submissions of the parties 61.     The Government argued that the third applicant lacked victim status in respect of the complaint under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention because Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş’s paternity of her had not been established by her mother. 62.     The applicants disagreed. (b)     The Court’s assessment 63.     The Court notes, in respect of the Government’s argument that the first applicant had failed to establish whether Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş was the third applicant’s father, that the first applicant was two months pregnant with the third applicant at the time of the events of September   1993 (see paragraph 14, above). In addition, the domestic courts acknowledged that for three years prior to his death, Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş had financially supported the second applicant, although his name was not registered on the second applicant’s birth certificate either (see   paragraphs 28 and 29, above). Moreover, it has never been contested that Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş was the first applicant’s common law partner at the time of his death. Consequently, the Court sees no reason to endorse the Government’s argument concerning the third applicant’s paternity and to distinguish between her and the second applicant. 64.     However, the Court does not consider the above mentioned argument relevant to the case at hand since in any event it notes that the applicants’ complaint under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention concerns their living conditions in the aftermath of the events of September 1993. It also observes that the Government did not contest that the third applicant had shared the same fate as her mother, the first applicant, in so far as the living conditions they had been directly faced with after the events were concerned. Moreover, it notes that the domesti