CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA16F6F64 { width:174.08pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s1533E8B1 { height:41.4pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1AE20776 { height:59.7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43624/13 Angela ȚINTARU against Romania and 37 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   June   2016 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Mr I. Matei, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Șandru and Others v. Romania (no. 22465/03, §§ 6-47, 8   December   2009), having the same historical context, namely the 1989 events in Timișoara. Most of them relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings finalized by a decision of 3 April 2007, final on 15 October 2008 and drafted on 12   January   2009 with the exception of applications nos. 24111/14 and 24244/14 in which the investigations were concluded by a decision of 9   December   1991, final on 6 June 1997. The circumstances in which the applicants in the present case were shot and those in which their close relatives were killed have not been investigated in case file no. 11/P/2014 (97/P/1990) which is still pending at the domestic level (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v.   Romania , nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, 24 May 2011 and Elena Apostol and Others v. Romania , nos. 24093/14 and 16 others, 23 February 2016). B.     Relevant domestic law The applicable legal provisions are detailed in Șandru and Others (cited above, § 48) and Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 95-100). COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention about the respondent State’s failure to conduct an effective, impartial and thorough investigation into the 1989 events. They further relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to complain about the length of the criminal investigations into the events of December 1989, and on Article 13 to complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the determination of their claims. THE LAW The applicants’ complaints relate to the domestic authorities’ failure to effectively investigate the events which led to them being injured by gunshot and/or their relatives being killed, to the excessive length of the criminal investigations thereof and to the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the determination of their claims. The Government disagreed and they raised five preliminary objections. Firstly, they challenged the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine applications nos. 24111/14 and 24244/14, claiming that the relevant proceedings ended by the final decision of 9 December 1991. Secondly, they submitted that all applications should be rejected for non ‑ compliance with the six-month time-limit as the investigation into the said events was terminated by final domestic decisions rendered years before the applicants lodged their applications before the Court, namely in 2013-2014. They further submitted that some applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as they did not appeal against the decision of 3   April   2007 which became final on 15 October 2008. Moreover, they considered the applications an abuse of petition in view of the fact that the applicants failed to inform the Court that the events in which they were injured and their relatives killed were subject to the above mentioned proceedings finalized with criminal convictions. Lastly, the Government challenged the applicants’ standing arguing that they were not parties in the proceedings in case file no.   11/P/2014   (97/P/1990) still pending at the domestic level. The Court notes at the outset that in accordance with the documents on file, the first instance decision of 9 December 1991 became final on 6   June   1997, i.e. after 20 June 1994 when Romania ratified the Convention. For this reasons, the Court dismisses the ratione temporis objection. The Court further notes that under the terms of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only examine complaints which have been submitted within six months from the date of the “final” domestic decision. In this respect the Court observes that investigations into the Timișoara events as relevant to the present case led to the criminal conviction of certain military officers in two sets of proceedings terminated by final decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Justice and the High Court of Cassation and Justice respectively. The Court therefore considers that the final decisions within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are respectively those of 6   June   1997 (relevant for applications nos. 24111/14 and 24244/14) and of 15   October   2008 (all other applications). The Court notes that the applications were lodged respectively on 28 June 2013 and 21   March   2014, which is more than six months after the date of either of the two   final decisions. It follows that the applications are inadmissible for non ‑ compliance with the “six months” rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and that they must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. The Court considers that in such circumstances it is no longer necessary to examine the remainder of the observations raised by the Government with respect to the admissibility of the present applications. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2016.   Andrea Tamietti   Vincent A. De Gaetano Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No   Application No   Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence     43624/13 28/06/2013 Angela ȚINTARU 18/10/1969 Timișoara     43688/13 28/06/2013 Larisa-Diana BELICI 12/10/1988 Timișoara     43747/13 28/06/2013 Ion BELICI 10/04/1940 Jebel     43759/13 28/06/2013 David-Ilie LEIA 20/07/1948 Zam     43810/13 28/06/2013 Natalia BELICI 01/08/1965 Timișoara     43816/13 28/06/2013 Ramona-Dorina FEȘIU 09/04/1978 Timișoara     43852/13 28/06/2013 Emilia IȘFAN 04/07/1936 Timișoara     43872/13 28/06/2013 Ana BELICI 05/02/1948 Jebel     43874/13 28/06/2013 Vasile BĂRBAT 06/10/1937 Orșova               43875/13 28/06/2013 Angelica-Dacia DAMIAN 03/11/1968 Timișoara               43877/13 28/06/2013 Ioana Daniela BĂRBAT 15/06/1977 Timișoara               43881/13 28/06/2013 Iosif Florian SAVA 20/06/1976 Timișoara               43882/13 28/06/2013 Iosif SAVA 05/09/1955 Utvin               43889/13 28/06/2013 Roxana Elena OPRE 23/07/1987 Timișoara               43891/13 28/06/2013 Gabriel-Ciprian OPRE 30/06/1983 Timișoara               43894/13 28/06/2013 Angelica OPRE 16/08/1958 Timișoara               43920/13 28/06/2013 Valeria GÎRJOABĂ 30/12/1963 Timișoara               43923/13 28/06/2013 Maria GÎRJOABĂ 24/12/1947 Timișoara                 43926/13 28/06/2013 Constantin GÂRJOABĂ 01/08/1941 Timișoara               43932/13 28/06/2013 Dumitru-Dan GÎRJOABĂ 13/03/1987 Timișoara               43942/13 28/06/2013 Anica IOSUB 10/07/1937 Chișoda               24090/14 21/03/2014 Dumitru ALEXOAIE 03/10/1969 Timișoara               24091/14 21/03/2014 Camelia ANDREI 07/04/1968 Timișoara               24110/14 21/03/2014 Mihai BUMBAR 29/11/1969 Ruscova               24111/14 21/03/2014 Nicușor CUCOȘ 20/05/1962 Timișoara               24115/14 21/03/2014 Erika DRĂGHICI 08/10/1968 Timișoara               24116/14 21/03/2014 Marcel-Constantin DRĂGHICI 29/05/1965 Timișoara                 24162/14 21/03/2014 Doinița GHERASIM 04/01/1966 Timișoara               24168/14 21/03/2014 Ștefan HORVATH 16/11/1967 Timișoara               24173/14 21/03/2014 Lidia LAZĂR 20/02/1969 Timișoara               24181/14 21/03/2014 Nelu HALIP 02/09/1967 Beregsău Mic               24205/14 21/03/2014 Stelian LUCHESCU 06/02/1963 Timișoara               24210/14 21/03/2014 Eugen MURARIU 19/10/1961 Timișoara               24220/14 21/03/2014 Lucian Andrei MUREȘAN 30/12/1971 Timișoara               24225/14 21/03/2014 Dan-Ioan PAȘCA 29/08/1972 Timișoara               24235/14 21/03/2014 Vasile STAN 14/01/1955 Timișoara                 24238/14 21/03/2014 Zora STOIANOV 09/09/1973 Timișoara               24244/14 21/03/2014 Marcel SIDENCO 22/11/1970 Sant’Angelo Lodigiano