CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 17 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sF86C8886 { width:236.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s69657589 { width:208.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s58FE4886 { width:182.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s185E41F1 { width:73.39pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAEA713E { width:226.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s681BE8C7 { width:183.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s1CA00D95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .sA89582B { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic }       GRAND CHAMBER                 CASE OF MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08)                     JUDGMENT           STRASBOURG   17 September 2014       This judgment is final.   In the case of Mocanu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President,   Guido Raimondi,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro,   Peer Lorenzen,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Ann Power-Forde,   Işıl Karakaş,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Paul Lemmens,   Aleš Pejchal,   Johannes Silvis,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,   Florin Streteanu, ad hoc judge, and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2013 and 25 June 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in three applications 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, Mrs Anca Mocanu (no. 10865/09), Mr Marin Stoica (no.   32431/08) and Mr Teodor Mărieş, and by the Association “21   December 1989”, a legal entity registered under Romanian law and based in Bucharest (no. 45886/07) (“the applicants”) on 28   January 2009, 25   June 2008 and 13 July 2007 respectively. 2.     Before the Court, Mrs Mocanu, Mr Mărieş and the applicant association were represented by Mr A. Popescu, Ms   I.   Sfîrăială   and Mr I. Matei, lawyers practising in Bucharest. Mrs Mocanu was granted legal aid. Mr Stoica, who was also granted legal aid, was represented until 8   December 2009 by Ms D. Nacea, a lawyer practising in Bucharest, and from 22   January 2013 by Ms D.O. Hatneanu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, first by Mr   R.H.   Radu, then by Ms I. Cambrea, and finally by Ms C.   Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     In their respective applications, the individual applicants alleged that they had been victims of the violent crackdown on the anti-government demonstrations which took place in Bucharest in June 1990 and claimed that no effective investigation had been carried out into those events. With reference to the same events, the applicant association complained of the length of the criminal proceedings which it had joined as a civil party. 4.     The applications were allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 3 February 2009 the Chamber decided to join applications nos.   45886/07 and 32431/08 and to communicate them to the Government. On 15   March 2011 it decided to give notice also of application no. 10865/09 to the Government. 5.     Following the withdrawal of Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania then in post, the Government appointed Mr Florin Streteanu to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6.     On 13 November 2012, a Chamber of the Third Section, composed of Josep Casadevall, Egbert Myjer, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ján Šikuta, Ineta Ziemele, Luis López Guerra, judges, Florin Streteanu, ad hoc judge, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, decided to join the three applications and declared them admissible as to the complaints under Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mrs Mocanu, Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Stoica and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant association, declaring the remainder of the application inadmissible. Application no. 45886/07 was declared inadmissible in respect of Mr Mărieş. The Chamber concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mrs Mocanu and a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant association, and held that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention. It also concluded, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Stoica. 7.     On 12 February 2013 Mr Stoica requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73. On 29 April 2013 the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 8.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 9.     Mr Stoica, the applicant association and the Government all filed further observations (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party observations were received from the international non-governmental organisation Redress, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). 10.     A hearing was held in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 2 October 2013 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Ms   C. Brumar ,   Agent , Ms   G. Munteanu ,   Counsel ; (b)     for the applicants Ms   D.O. Hatneanu , lawyer, Mr   A. Popescu , lawyer, Ms   I. Sfîrăială , lawyer,   Counsel, Mr   T. Mărieş ,   President of the applicant association, Mr   M. Stoica   Applicant.   The Court heard addresses firstly by Ms Hatneanu and Ms Sfîrăială, then by Ms Brumar and Ms Munteanu, and lastly by Mr Popescu and Mr   Mărieş, as well as their answers to questions put by the judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 11.     Mrs Anca Mocanu and Mr Marin Stoica were born in 1970 and 1948 respectively. They live in Bucharest. 12.     The Association “21 December 1989” ( Asociaţia 21 Decembrie 1989 ) was set up on 9 February 1990 and is based in Bucharest. 13.     The applicant association brings together mainly individuals who were injured during the violent suppression of the anti-totalitarian demonstrations which took place in Romania in December 1989 and the relatives of persons who died during those events. It was one of the groups which supported the anti-government demonstrations held in Bucharest between April and June 1990, at which demonstrators called, inter alia , for the identification of those responsible for the violence committed in December 1989. A.     The events of 13 to 15 June 1990 1.     Overview of the main events 14.     The main facts concerning the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations from 13 to 15 June 1990 were described in the decisions of 16 September 1998 (see paragraphs 99-110 below) and 17 June 2009 (see paragraphs 152-63 below), issued by the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice (which in 2003 became the High Court of Cassation and Justice), and in the decisions to commit for trial ( rechizitoriu ) issued by the same prosecutor’s office on 18   May 2000 and 27   July 2007. 15.     On 13 June 1990 the security forces’ intervention against the demonstrators who were occupying University Square and other areas of the capital resulted in several civilian casualties, including Mrs Mocanu’s husband, Mr Mocanu, who was killed by a shot fired from the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior. 16.     On the evening of 13 June 1990 Mr Stoica and other persons, some but not all of whom were demonstrators, were arrested and ill-treated by uniformed police officers and men in civilian clothing, in the area around the headquarters of the State television service and in the basement of that building. 17.     On 14 June 1990 thousands of miners were transported to Bucharest, essentially from the Jiu Valley ( Valea Jiului ) mining region, to take part in the crackdown on the demonstrators. 18.     At 6.30 a.m. on 14 June 1990 the President of Romania addressed the miners, who had arrived in the square in front of the Government building, inviting them to go to University Square, occupy it and defend it against the demonstrators; they subsequently did so. 19.     The violent events of 13 and 14 June 1990 resulted in more than a thousand victims, whose names appear in a list attached to the decision issued on 29   April 2008 by the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 20.     The headquarters of several political parties and other institutions, including those of the applicant association, were attacked and ransacked. The latter association subsequently joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party. 21.     The criminal proceedings into the unlawful killing by gunfire of Mr   Velicu-Valentin Mocanu are still pending. The investigation opened on 13   June 1990 into the ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on Mr Stoica was closed by a decision not to bring a prosecution, dated 17 June 2009, subsequently upheld by a judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 9 March 2011. 22.     The facts as set out by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice in its decisions of 16 September 1998 and 17   June   2009 and in the decisions to commit for trial of 18 May 2000 and 27   July 2007 may be summarised as follows. 2.     The demonstrations held in the first months of 1990 23.     University Square in Bucharest was considered a symbolic location for the fight against the totalitarian regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu, given the large number of persons who had died or were injured there as a result of the armed repression initiated by the regime on 21 December 1989. It was therefore in this square that several associations – including the applicant association – called on their members to attend protest events in the first months of 1990. 24.     Thus, the first demonstrations against the provisional government formed after the fall of the Ceauşescu regime took place in University Square in Bucharest on 12 and 24 January 1990, as indicated in the decision issued on 17 June 2009 by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. That decision also states that a counter-demonstration was organised by the National Salvation Front ( Frontul Salvării Naţionale – the FSN) on 29 January 1990. On that occasion, miners from the coal-mining regions of the Jiu Valley, Maramureş and other areas appeared in Bucharest. The headquarters of the National Liberal Party were vandalised at that time. 25.     From 25 February 1990, demonstrations were held every Sunday. According to the decision to commit for trial of 27 July 2007, they were intended to denounce the non-democratic attitude of those in power, who were accused of having “betrayed the ideals of the revolution”, and sought to alert the population to the threat of a new dictatorial regime. 26.     Election campaigns were subsequently launched for parliamentary elections and the office of President of the Republic, to be held on 20   May   1990. 27.     It was in this context that unauthorised “marathon demonstrations” ( manifestaţii maraton ) began on 22 April 1990 in University Square, at the initiative of the Students’ League and other associations, including the applicant association. These demonstrations lasted fifty-two days, during which the demonstrators occupied University Square. The decisions of 16   September 1998 and 17 June 2009 indicate that the demonstrators, who had gathered in large numbers, were not violent and were essentially demanding that persons who had exercised power during the totalitarian regime be excluded from political life. They also called for a politically independent television station. 28.     They called further for the identification of those responsible for the armed repression of December 1989 and demanded the resignation of the country’s leaders (particularly the Minister of the Interior), whom they considered responsible for the repression of the anti-communist demonstrations in December 1989. 29.     On 22 April 1990 fourteen demonstrators were arrested by the police on the ground that the demonstration had not been authorised. Faced with the reaction of the public, who had arrived to boost the number of demonstrators in University Square, the police released the fourteen arrested demonstrators. The authorities did not use force again over the following days, although the Bucharest City Council had still not authorised the gathering. 30.     Negotiations between the demonstrators and the provisional government resulted in stalemate. 31.     On 20 May 1990 the presidential and parliamentary elections took place. The FSN and its leader, who was standing for President, won the elections. 32.     Following those elections the protests continued in University Square, but were reduced from their original scale. Of the approximately 260 persons still present, 118 had gone on hunger strike. 3.     The meeting held by the executive on 11 June 1990 33.     On the evening of 11 June 1990 the new President elect of Romania and his Prime Minister convened a government meeting, attended by the Minister of the Interior and his deputy, the Minister of Defence, the director of the Romanian Intelligence Service ( Serviciul Român de Informaţii – the SRI), the first deputy president of the ruling party (the FSN) and the Procurator General of Romania. This is established in the prosecution service’s decisions of 16 September 1998 and 17   June 2009. 34.     At that meeting it was decided to take measures to clear University Square on 13 June 1990. In addition, it was proposed that the State organs, namely the police and army, would be assisted by some 5,000 mobilised civilians. Implementation of this measure was entrusted to the first deputy president of the FSN. Two members of that party’s steering committee opposed the measure, but without success. According to the decision of 17   June 2009, an action plan drawn up by General C. was approved by the Prime Minister. 35.     On the same evening the Procurator General’s Office ( Procuratura Generală ) broadcast a statement on State television calling on the government to take measures so that vehicles could circulate again in University Square. 36.     At a meeting held on the same evening with the participation of the Minister of the Interior, the head of the SRI and the head of police, General D.C. set out the plans for the police and gendarmerie, in collaboration with civilian forces, to clear University Square. Under this plan, the action was “to begin at 4 a.m. on 13 June 1990 by cordoning off the square, arresting the demonstrators and re-establishing public order”. 4.     The sequence of events on 13 June 1990 37.     At about 4.30 a.m. on 13 June 1990 members of the police and gendarmerie brutally charged the demonstrators in University Square. The arrested demonstrators were driven away and locked up at the Bucharest municipal police station. The 263 arrested individuals (or 262, according to the decision to commit for trial of 18 May 2000) included students from the Architecture Institute, who had been on the premises of their establishment, located on University Square, and who had not taken part in the demonstrations. The decision of 17 June 2009 indicated that the 263   persons who had been arrested were taken to the Măgurele barracks after being held in the police cells. 38.     The police operation led to protests by many people, who demanded that the arrested demonstrators be released. According to the decision of 16   September 1998, those persons launched violent attacks on the security forces, hurling projectiles and setting cars on fire. According to the decision to commit for trial of 18 May 2000, those actions were the work of a few aggressive individuals who had infiltrated groups of peaceful demonstrators. 39.     At about 10 a.m., workers from the factories of a large metallurgical company in Bucharest (IMGB) headed en masse for University Square to help the police arrest the demonstrators. According to the decision of 16 September 1998, they acted in a chaotic and heavy-handed manner, hitting out blindly and making no distinction between demonstrators and mere passers-by. 40.     On the afternoon of 13 June 1990, the demonstrations intensified around the television building, University Square, the Ministry of the Interior and the municipal police station, all locations where, according to the demonstrators, the persons who had been arrested could be held prisoner. 41.     Following those incidents, the army intervened and several armoured vehicles were sent to the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior. 42.     According to a report by the Ministry of the Interior, referred to by the Government in their observations, at about 6 p.m. the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior were surrounded by between 4,000 and 5,000   demonstrators; on the orders of Generals A.G. and C.M., servicemen posted inside the Ministry fired at the ceilings of the entrance halls with a view to dispersing the demonstrators. 43.     Three persons were killed by the shots fired in the Ministry of the Interior. 44.     It was in those circumstances that, at about 6 p.m., when he was a few metres away from one of the doors of the Ministry, the first applicant’s husband was killed by a bullet which hit the back of his head after having ricocheted. Those events are described in detail in the decisions of 18 May 2000 and 27 July 2007 committing for trial the Minister of the Interior at the relevant time, a general and three colonels. According to the first decision to commit for trial, the applicant’s husband and the other victims, who were returning from their workplaces on that day, were unarmed and had not previously taken part in the marathon demonstrations in University Square. Mere spectators of the events, they had been killed by bullets which had ricocheted. 45.     The security forces shot and killed a fourth person in another district of Bucharest. Another died shortly after having been stabbed in the area around the television headquarters. 46.     On 13 June 1990 no servicemen were subjected to violence by the demonstrators, as attested by the decision to commit for trial of 27 July 2007. According to that document, the army had fired 1,466 bullets from inside the Ministry of the Interior headquarters on that date. 47.     In addition, other persons, including Mr Stoica, were beaten and detained by police officers and civilians in the headquarters of the State television station, in the circumstances described below. 48.     The headquarters of the State television station were at that time guarded by 82 servicemen, backed by 14 armed vehicles, and subsequently reinforced by other groups of armed forces, the largest of which contained 156 servicemen (who arrived at 7 p.m.), a detachment of parachutists (7.30   p.m.), 646 servicemen (8 p.m.), 118 parachutists (11   p.m.) and 360   servicemen with 13 other armed vehicles (11 p.m.). 49.     At about 1 a.m. the demonstrators were chased out of the television headquarters following this mass intervention. 5.     Circumstances specific to Mr Marin Stoica 50.     Towards the end of the afternoon on 13 June 1990, while he was walking to his workplace along a street near the State television headquarters, the applicant was brutally arrested by a group of armed individuals and taken by force into the television building. In sight of the police officers and servicemen present, civilians struck and bound him, then took him to the basement of the building. He was then led into a television studio, where several dozen other persons were already present. They were filmed in the presence of the then director of the State television station. The recordings were broadcast during the night of 13 to 14 June 1990, accompanied by commentary which described the persons concerned as employees of foreign secret services who had threatened to destroy the television premises and equipment. 51.     In the course of the same night the applicant was beaten, struck on the head with blunt objects and threatened with firearms until he lost consciousness. 52.     He woke up at around 4.30 a.m. in the Floreasca Hospital in Bucharest. According to the forensic medical report drawn up on 18   October 2002, the medical certificate issued by the hospital’s emergency surgery department stated that the applicant had been admitted at about 4.30   a.m. on 14 June 1990 and diagnosed as suffering from bruising on the left side of the abdomen and ribcage, abrasions on the left side of his ribcage resulting from an assault, and craniocerebral trauma. 53.     Fearing further ill-treatment, he fled from the hospital, which was surrounded by police officers, at about 6.30 a.m. 54 .     His identity papers had been confiscated during the night of 13 to 14   June 1990. Three months later he was invited to collect them from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations at the General Inspectorate of Police. In the meantime, he had remained shut away at home for fear of being arrested again, tortured and imprisoned. 6.     The miners’ arrival in Bucharest 55.     According to the decision of 16 September 1998, witness M.I., an engineer, who at the relevant time was head of department at the Craiova agency of the national railway company ( Regionala CFR Craiova ), had stated that, on the evening of 13 June 1990, the director of that agency had ordered that the scheduled trains be cancelled and that 4 train convoys, or a total of 57 wagons, be made available to the miners at Petroşani station, in the heart of the Jiu Valley mining area. 56.     M.I. had added that the order seemed to him unlawful and that he had attempted to prevent the miners’ transportation to Bucharest by cutting the electricity provision to the railway line on the journey indicated. He had stated that, faced with his insubordination, the director of the Craiova CFR agency had ordered that he be replaced and had the railway line restored to use by about 9 p.m. It appears that M.I. was subsequently dismissed and brought before the prosecution service. 57.     According to the decision issued on 10 March 2009 by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, on 14 June 1990 11 trains – a total of 120 wagons – transporting workers, especially miners, had travelled to Bucharest from several industrial regions around the country. The first had reached Bucharest at 3.45 a.m., the last at 7.08   p.m. 58.     The decision of 16 September 1998 states that the miners had been informed that they were to help the police re-establish public order in Bucharest, and that they were armed with axes, chains, sticks and metal cables. 59.   The decision of 10 March 2009 indicates that the miners had been mobilised by the leaders of their trade union. Questioned as a witness, the President of the Federation of Miners’ Unions, who became mayor of Lupeni in 1998, stated that 5 trains carrying the miners had arrived at Bucharest station at about 1 a.m. on 14 June 1990, that the miners had been greeted by the deputy Minister for Mines and a Director General from that Ministry, and that these two senior government officials had led them to University Square. 7.     The sequence of events on 14 June 1990 60.     On the morning of 14 June 1990, groups of miners first stopped at Victory Square ( Piaţa Victoriei ), at the government headquarters. 61.     At about 6.30 a.m., the Head of State addressed the miners who were gathered in front of the government building, inviting them to cooperate with the security forces and to restore order in University Square and in other areas where incidents had occurred. In this speech, which is reproduced in full in the decision of 17 June 2009, he urged them to head towards University Square and occupy it, informing them that they would be confronted with “openly fascist elements who had committed acts of vandalism” by setting fire to the headquarters of both the Ministry of the Interior and of the police and “besieging the television building”. 62.     Immediately afterwards groups of miners were led “by unidentified persons” to the headquarters of opposition parties and associations perceived as hostile to the authorities. 63.     The miners were flanked by troops from the Ministry of the Interior, with whom they formed “mixed teams”, and set out to look for demonstrators. The decision of 17 June 2009 indicates that “acts of extreme cruelty [took place] on this occasion, with violence being used indiscriminately against demonstrators and Bucharest residents who were totally unconnected with the demonstrations”. The decision of 10 March 2009 indicates that the miners also attacked the homes of persons of Roma ethnicity. According to that decision, the miners had “selection criteria” for identifying those persons who, in their opinion, were suspected of taking part in the University Square demonstrations, and attacked “as a general rule, Roma, students, intellectuals, journalists and anyone who did not recognise their legitimacy”. 64.     The groups of miners and the other persons accompanying them ransacked the headquarters of the National Farmers’ Party ( Partidul Naţional Ţărănesc Creştin şi Democrat ) and the National Liberal Party, and the headquarters of other legal entities, such as the Association of Former Political Prisoners ( Asociaţia Foştilor Deţinuţi Politici ), the League for the Protection of Human Rights ( Liga pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului ) and the Association “21 December 1989” (the applicant association). 65.     According to the decision of 16 September 1998, no one present in the headquarters of those political parties and associations at that time was spared by the miners. All were attacked and had their possessions confiscated. Many were apprehended and handed over to the police – who were there “as though by coincidence” – and detained in an entirely unlawful manner. 66.     Other groups of miners had gone to University Square. On arrival, they broke into the University premises and the Architecture Institute, located on University Square. They attacked the staff and students whom they encountered there, subjecting them to violence and humiliating acts. The miners apprehended everyone on the premises and handed them over to the police and gendarmes. The arrested persons were taken by the law-enforcement officers to police stations or to the Băneasa and Măgurele military barracks. 67.     The miners then moved into the streets surrounding University Square and continued their activities there. 68.     According to the decision of 17 June 2009, 1,021 individuals – including 63 who were then under age – were apprehended in those circumstances. Of those individuals, 182 of them were placed in pre-trial detention, 88 received an administrative penalty and 706 were released “after checks”. 69.     The decision of 16 September 1998 states that “the miners [ended] their law-enforcement activities on 15 June 1990, after the President of Romania had thanked them publicly for what they had done in the capital, and authorised them to return to their work”. 70.     That decision also indicates that some of those who were beaten and imprisoned were unlawfully detained for several days and that several of them were released on 19 and 20 June 1990. 71.     The other persons in police custody were placed in pre-trial detention, on a decision by the prosecutor, for causing a breach of the peace; their number included the current president of the applicant association, who was subsequently acquitted of all the charges against him. 72.     The decision of 17 June 2009 states that the miners acted in close collaboration with the security forces and on the instructions of the State’s leaders. The relevant passages read as follows: “On 14 and 15 June 1990 the miners, in groups coordinated by civilians on behalf of and with the agreement of the State’s leaders [ în numele şi cu acordul conducerii de stat ], committed acts in which the State’s law-enforcement forces fully collaborated [ deplină cooperare ] and which caused not only physical harm to the persons who were apprehended for checks, but also significant damage to the premises of the University of Bucharest, the Architecture Institute, several political parties and civilian associations, and the homes of figures from so-called ‘historical’ parties ... The investigations conducted by the military prosecutors have not permitted identification of the persons in civilian clothing who had infiltrated the miners’ groups; the victims who were questioned had distinguished between the miners and their other attackers by describing the first as ‘dirty miners’ and the second as ‘clean miners’. 8.     Circumstances specific to the applicant association 73.     On 13 June 1990 the applicant association publicly condemned the violent interventions of the same day. 74.     At about 11 p.m. the leaders of the association decided, as a security measure, to spend the night in its headquarters. Seven of them remained there during the night. 75.     At 7 a.m. on 14 June 1990, a group of miners forcibly entered the applicant association’s premises after breaking a window pane. In the first few minutes after entering they were not violent, and were rather reserved. Shortly afterwards an unidentified civilian, who was not a miner, arrived on the scene and began hitting one of the members of the association. The miners followed his lead, brutally attacking the seven members of the association, who were then arrested by the security forces. 76.     During that day all of the association’s property and documents were seized, in breach of the legal formalities, under the supervision of troops from the Ministry of Defence. 77.     On 22 June 1990 the leaders of the association were able to return to the association’s premises, accompanied by the police. 9.     Developments subsequent to the events of 13 to 15 June 1990 78.     The above-cited decisions of the prosecutor’s office indicate that, instead of immediately returning to their homes, 958 miners remained in Bucharest, “ready to intervene should the protests recommence”, notably with a view to the impending swearing-in of the newly elected President. From 16 to 19 June 1990 those miners were accommodated in military barracks in Bucharest, where they received military uniforms. 79.     The decision of 16 September 1998 indicates that the investigation was unable to elucidate who had given the order to house and equip the miners, but specifies that “such a measure had to have been taken at least at Ministry of Defence level”. 80.     According to a press release issued by the Ministry of Health on 15   June 1990 and reproduced in the decision of 17 June 2009, during the period between 13 June and 6 a.m. on 15 June 1990, 467 persons went to hospital following the violent incidents; 112 were kept in hospital and 5   deaths were recorded. 81.     According to the same decision of 17 June 2009, police officers, miners and later the military conscripts responsible for supervising the miners used excessive force against the 574 demonstrators and the other persons – including children, elderly persons and blind people – who had been arrested and detained in the Măgurele military barracks. The decision states that the detainees on those premises were subjected to violence and assaults of a “psychological, physical and sexual” nature and held in inappropriate conditions, and that they received belated and inadequate medical care. B.     The criminal investigation 82.     The violent events of June 1990, in the course of which the husband of the applicant Anca Mocanu was killed and Mr Stoica was allegedly ill-treated, and which resulted in the ransacking of the applicant association’s headquarters, gave rise to the opening of an investigation. It was initially divided up into several hundred different case files. 83.     On 29 May 2009 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice sent a letter to the Government’s Agent, in which the facts were summarised as follows: “Over the period from 1990 to 1997, hundreds of complaints were registered on the rolls of the prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest County Court and the district prosecutor’s offices concerning the offences of theft, destruction, armed robbery, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful deprivation of liberty and other offences committed in the context of the acts of violence committed by miners in Bucharest on 14 and 15 June 1990. In the majority of those cases, it having proved impossible to identify the perpetrators, a decision was issued not to bring a prosecution.” 84.     No decision to discontinue the proceedings was communicated to Mrs Mocanu or to the applicant association, which had joined the proceedings as a civil party. 85.     Those case files were subsequently joined and the scope of the investigation was broadened from 1997 onwards, the events having been given a different legal classification involving aggravated criminal responsibility. Senior army officers and State officials were successively charged and the entire investigation was transferred to the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice ( Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea Supremă de Justiţie – Secţia Parchetelor Militare ) as case no.   160/P/1997. 86.     Between 22 October 1997 and 27 October 1999, 183 previously opened cases were joined to case no. 160/P/1997, of which 46 were joined on 22   October 1997, 90 on 16   September 1998 and 69 on 22 October 1999. 87.     On 26 June 2000 the same military prosecutor’s section was assigned 748 cases concerning the events of 13 to 15 June 1990, including, in particular, the unlawful deprivations of liberty on 13   June 1990. 88.     In the decision of 17 June 2009, the state of the file as it existed after the joinder of all those cases is described as follows: “Many of the documents included in the 250 volumes of the file are photocopies which have not been stamped or have not been certified as corresponding to the original. The documents in each of those volumes are not filed by date, subject or another criterion, but in a disorderly fashion. Some of them have nothing to do with the case (for example, volume 150 contains files concerning disappearances which occurred after June 1990). ...” 89.     On 16 September 1998 case no. 160/P/1997 was split into four cases and the subsequent investigation was assigned to the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice. 90.     On 8 January 2001 three of those four cases were joined. After that date the investigation focused on two main cases. 91.     The first concerned charges of incitement to or participation in aggravated unlawful killing, particularly that of Velicu-Valentin Mocanu. The persons accused of that offence were the President of Romania at the relevant time and five senior army officers, including the Minister of the Interior. 92.     The decision of 19 June 2007to bring charges, and the subsequent decision of 19 July 2007 to sever the charges, state that, on orders from the then President, on the evening of 13 June and the night of 13 to 14 June 1990 the security forces and army personnel used their weapons and heavy ammunition against demonstrators, killing four persons, injuring three others and endangering the lives of other persons. 93.     The charges against the former President were subsequently severed from those against the other defendants, who were high-ranking military officers, and a decision to discontinue proceedings against him was issued. 94.     At 2 October 2013 this first branch of the investigation was still pending in respect of two of the officers in question, the three others having died in the meantime. 95.     The other case concerning the events of June 1990, which investigated, in particular, the criminal complaint for violence lodged by Mr   Stoica and the ransacking of the applicant association’s premises, concerned charges of incitement to commit or participation in acts of sedition ( subminarea puterii de stat ), sabotage ( actele de diversiune ), inhuman treatment ( tratamentele neomenoase ), propaganda in favour of war ( propaganda pentru război ) and genocide, within the meaning of Article   357 (a) to (c) of the Criminal Code. 96.     The persons accused of those acts were the former President, several high-ranking officers and dozens of civilians. Proceedings were brought in respect of these charges against the former President on 9 September 2005 and against the former head of the SRI on 12 June 2006. 97.     This second branch of the investigation was closed by a decision not to bring a prosecution, adopted on 17 June 2009. That decision was upheld by a judgment delivered on 9 March 2011 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice following an appeal by Mr   Stoica. 98.     The main stages of the investigation are described below. 1.     The decision adopted on 16   September 1998 99.     On 16 September 1998 the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice issued its decision in case no. 160/P/1997, following an investigation concerning sixty-three persons who had been victims of violence and unlawful arrests, including Mrs Mocanu and three members of the applicant association, as well as the applicant association itself and eleven other legal entities whose premises had been ransacked during the events of 13 to 15 June 1990. 100.     Of the sixty-three victims listed in the table contained in the decision of 16 September 1998, three had been assaulted and deprived of their liberty at the headquarters of the State television station. In the final column, indicating the stage reached in the investigations, the table notes that “the case has not been investigated” ( cauza nu este cercetată ) in respect of those three persons. 101.     In its decision, the military section of the prosecutor’s office indicated that other complaints were pending before the civilian prosecutors’ offices. 102.     It added that its decision also concerned “the presumed unlawful killing of about one hundred individuals during the events of 13 to 15 June 1990, [whose corpses] were allegedly incinerated or buried in common graves in cemeteries in villages near Bucharest (notably Străuleşti)”. 103 .     It also indicated that, to date, the investigation had been unable to identify the persons who had implemented in practice the executive’s decision to summon civilians to restore order in Bucharest. According to the prosecution service, this failing in the investigation was due to the “fact that none of the persons who held posts of responsibility at the relevant time [had] been questioned”, particularly the then President of Romania, the Prime Minister and his deputy, the Minister of the Interior, the head of the police, the director of the SRI and the Minister of Defence. 104.     In its decision, the military section ordered that the case be split into four separate case files. 105.     The first of those files was to focus on the continued investigation into the unlawful killing by gunfire of four civilians, including the first applicant’s husband. 106.     The second file targeted those persons who had exercised functions pertaining to civilian and military command. The authorities decided to pursue the investigation in respect of them, in particular for abuse of power against the public interest entailing serious consequences, an offence punishable under Article   248 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and also to investigate the fact that one social group had been enlisted alongside the security forces to combat other social groups. 107.     The third file concerned the continuing investigations into the possible existence of other victims who had been killed during the violent incidents of 13 to 15 June 1990 (see paragraph 102 above). 108.     Lastly, considering that the prosecution was statute-barred, the military section of the prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the proceedings against unidentified members of the security forces and groups of miners in respect of the offences of armed robbery, unlawful deprivation of liberty, abusive conduct, improper investigation, abuse of power against private interests, assault, actual bodily harm, destruction of property, theft, breaking and entering homes, malfeasance and rape, committed between 13   and 15 June 1990. 109.     This part of the decision of 16 September 1998 was set aside in a decision issued on 14 October 1999 by the head of the military section of the prosecutor’s office ( Şeful Secţiei Parchetelor Militare ) at the Supreme Court of Justice, which ordered that the proceedings and investigations intended to identify all the victims be resumed, specifying in that respect that it had been established that the number of victims greatly exceeded that of the injured parties listed in the impugned decision. 110.     In addition, the decision of 14 October 1999 noted that the investigators had so far failed to conduct investigations into the “known collusion” between the Ministry of the Interior and the leaders of the mining companies “with a view to organising a veritable apparatus of unlawful repression”, that collusion having been established, according to the decision by the evidence contained in the case file. 2.     Subsequent developments in the investigation in respect of senior army officials for participation in unlawful killing 111.     After the decision of 16 September 1998, the investigations into the unlawful killing of Mr Velicu-Valentin Mocanu continued under case no.   74/P/1998 (see paragraph 105 above). 112.     Mrs Mocanu and the two children she had had with the victim joined the proceedings as civil parties. 113.     Two generals – the former Minister of the Interior and his deputy – and three senior-ranking officials were charged with the unlawful killings committed on 13 June 1990, including that of the applicant’s husband, on 12, 18 and 21   January and 23 February 2000 respectively. 114.     All five were committed for trial on the basis of a decision to that effect ( rechizitoriu ) of 18   May 2000, on the ground that they had called for – and, in the case of the two generals, ordered – the opening of fire with heavy ammunition, an act which resulted in the death of four individuals and which caused serious injury to nine other persons. 115.     By a decision of 30 June 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice remitted the case to the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice for additional investigation intended to remedy various deficiencies, and reclassified the offence as participation in aggravated unlawful killing. It also ordered a series of investigative measures to be taken. 116.     Mrs Mocanu, other civil parties and the military section of the prosecutor’s office appealed against that decision on points of law. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (as the Supreme Court of Justice was renamed in 2003, see paragraph   14 above) in a judgment of 16   February 2004. 117.     After the investigation was resumed, the proceedings against the five defendants were discontinued by a decision of 14 October 2