CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sE990B9ED { width:165.58pt; display:inline-block } .sAFA34012 { width:196.47pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE9A8D4B4 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s524167 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .sE3157440 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A3C6A50 { height:2.9pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt }       FOURTH SECTION               CASE OF SIDEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 889/15 and 38 other applications - see appended list)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   5 June 2018               This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Sidea and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 May 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in 39 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 Romanian nationals. The applicants’ personal details, the dates of their applications and names of their representatives are set out in the appended tables. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     On 16 December 2015, 14 September 2016 and 11 January 2017 the complaints concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation, length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 12-41, 24 May 2011). 5.     The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and were injured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina which led to the fall of the communist regime. 6 .     In 1990 the military prosecutor’s offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, including the applicants’ injury or their close relatives’ death during these events. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). In a number of cases the prosecutor decided between 1991 and 1996 not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. These cases were further examined in the main criminal investigation file irrespective of a formal decision ordering re-opening, applicants being questioned by the prosecutor and raising civil claims, according to the circumstances of each case. 7.     The most important procedural steps were described in Association   “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41), and also in Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania (nos. 43626/13 and 69   others, §§   6-15, 12 April 2016). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shown below. 8.     On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main investigation, finding that the complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty, and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the occurrences could not be classified as offences and some were res judicatae (see Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania [Committee] , no.   43629/13, §   11, 7 November 2017). 9.   The decision of 14 October 2015 was annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. It was noted that the investigation in file no. 11/P/2014 was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date. 10.     On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in   rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities, the prosecutor’s office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events, verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television. 11 .     At the date of the latest information available to the Court (submitted by the parties on 13 April 2017 and 19 May 2017), the criminal investigation was still ongoing. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 12.     The legal provisions relevant for the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the events of December 1989 are mentioned in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 95-100); Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC] (nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§   193 ‑ 196, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); and Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others ([Committee] cited above, §§ 12-14, with further references). THE LAW I.     THE JOINDER OF THE CASES 13.     The Court notes that the present cases concern the same factual circumstances and raise similar legal issues. Consequently, it considers it appropriate to order their joinder, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     The applicants complained that the domestic authorities have not carried out within a reasonable time an effective investigation into the events of December 1989 occurred in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina, during which they were injured or their close relatives were killed by gunfire. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows: Article 2 “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally ...” A.     Admissibility 15.     The Government raised preliminary objections in relation to some of the applications (see Appendix A). 1.     Government’s objection of incompatibility ratione temporis 16.     The Government alleged that in applications nos. 39679/15 ( Gâscă   v. Romania ) and 39682/15 ( Sandor v. Romania ) the criminal investigation had been completed before 20 June 1994, the date of ratification of the Convention by Romania. 17.     The applicants submitted that the whole period should be examined, as the main criminal investigation in which they were parties was still ongoing. 18.     The Court has already defined its jurisdiction ratione temporis in similar cases (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v.   Romania , nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 114-118, 24 May 2011, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§   207─211, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), concluding that it was competent to examine complaints relating to the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations into the events of December 1989 when the majority of the proceedings and the most important procedural measures were carried out after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Romania. 19.     In the present case, the Court notes that after 20 June 1994 both applicants gave statements, asking for pursue of the criminal investigation and raising civil claims, participating as civil parties in the main criminal investigation (see paragraph 6 above). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case and it dismisses the objection. 2.     Government’s objection of non-compliance with the six ‑ month time ‑ limit rule 20.     The Government submitted that the applicants in applications nos.   39446/15 ( Istudor v. Romania ), 39672/15 ( Bereş v. Romania ), 39679/15 ( Gâscă v. Romania ) and 39682/15 ( Sandor v. Romania ) had lodged their applications outside the six ‑ month time ‑ limit calculated from the date of the prosecutor’s decisions closing their cases. 21.     The applicants contested this argument. 22.     The Court relies on the principles adopted in respect of the six ‑ month time ‑ limit rule, as stated in its case-law in cases where applicants have availed themselves of an apparently existing remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others , cited above, §§ 260 and 280). 23.     In the present case, the Court notes that the applicants’ cases continued to be examined in the main criminal investigation, as they had been questioned by the prosecutor after the date of the aforementioned decisions; in addition, the subsequent decision adopted by the prosecutor’s office concerned the same circumstances of fact. Moreover, the latter decision was quashed and the investigation was on 19 May 2017 still ongoing (see paragraphs 6–11 above). 24.     Consequently, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection. 3.     Government’s objection of lack of victim status 25.     The Government argued that the applicants in applications nos.   30393/15 ( Doina-Liliana Franga v. Romania ) and 30395/15 ( Victor   Franga v. Romania ) lacked victim status, since their case had been finalised by a prosecutor’s decision closing their case and their complaint was not examined further in the main criminal investigation. 26.     The applicants argued that they had victim status in the ongoing criminal investigation. 27.     The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicants is not in principle sufficient to deprive them of their status as “victims” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR   2006 ‑ V). 28.     In the present case, the applicants have been offered neither an acknowledgment of a rights violation nor any redress. The prosecutor’s failure to adopt a decision in the main criminal investigation file in respect of the circumstances of the applicants’ case could have no impact on the applicants’ standing, as the investigation had been initiated by the prosecutor’s office of its own motion and requests for a civil claim and pursuance of the proceedings in respect of the death of the applicants’ close relative had been registered with the prosecutor in the main criminal investigation file (see paragraph 6 above; see also, mutatis mutandis , Dobre   and Others v.   Romania , no. 34160/09, §§ 55-57, 17 March 2015). 29.     Therefore, the Government’s objection is rejected. 4.     Other reasons for inadmissibility 30.     The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 31.     The Government described the steps taken recently by the national authorities in order to complete the criminal investigation into the events of December 1989 and made reference to their previous arguments raised in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above) and Alecu   and   Others v. Romania , nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, 27   January   2015). 32.     The Court reiterates that an investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of the circumstances of fact and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but of means (see Kelly and Others v.   the   United   Kingdom , no. 30054/96, § 96, 4 May 2001, and Anguelova   v.   Bulgaria , no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002 ‑ IV). The State’s obligation under Article 2 of the Convention will not be satisfied if the protection afforded by domestic law exists only in theory: above all, it must also operate effectively in practice and that requires a prompt examination of the case without unnecessary delays. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 195, 9 April 2009; Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 191, ECHR 2009; Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above, § 134; and Mocanu and Others , cited above, § 317). 33.     In the present case, the Court notes that shortly after the events of December 1989 a criminal investigation was opened into the applicants’ injury and/or the death of their close relatives from gunfire in these circumstances. 34.     Bearing in mind its ratione temporis jurisdiction and regardless of the fact that the investigation was carried out by military prosecutors (see Elena Apostol and Others v. Romania , nos. 24093/14 and 16 others, § 34, 23 February 2016), the Court notes that the investigation in the present case was opened more than twenty-eight years ago and it is still ongoing twenty ‑ four years after the Convention’s ratification. 35.     In the light of the principles deriving from Article 2 regarding an effective investigation ( Mocanu and Others , cited above, §§ 314-326), the Court considers that the criminal investigation does not meet the required standards, due to its lack of promptness and of reasonable expedition, the non-involvement of the applicants in the proceedings, and the lack of information provided to the public about its progress. Identifying shortcomings in this investigation that are similar to those in Association   “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 133-145) and Alecu and Others (cited above, § 39), the Court cannot therefore depart from its previous approach on the matter. 36 .     The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation into their cases. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, under its procedural limb. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 37.     Some of the applicants listed in Appendix A complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings concerning the events of December 1989 and under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy to enable their claims to be determined. 38.     In the light of the finding relating to Article 2 (see paragraph   36 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and/or 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Association “21 December 1989” and Others , cited above, § 181). IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 39.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 40.     The applicants claimed the amounts mentioned in Appendix A in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 41.     The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated by evidence and excessive. 42.     The Court considers on the one hand that the applicants have failed to demonstrate the existence of a casual link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects those claims. On the other hand, the Court considers that the violation of Article 2 of the Convention, under its procedural limb, has caused the applicants substantial non-pecuniary damage, such as distress and frustration. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them the amounts set out in Appendix B, plus any tax that may be chargeable. B.     Costs and expenses 43.     The applicants also claimed costs and expenses, as well as the respective lawyers’ fees incurred before the Court in the amounts indicated in Appendix A. 44.     The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated. 45.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award each of the applicants in applications nos. 889/15 ( Sidea v. Romania ) and 1199/15 ( Man   v.   Romania ), the sum of EUR 500 covering the lawyer’s fee for the proceedings before the Court. Given the lack of any relevant documentation, it rejects the claim for costs and expenses and the lawyer’s fee raised in the remaining applications. C.     Default interest 46.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaint concerning Article 2 of the Convention admissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;   4.     Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and the merits of the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention;   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)     the amounts set out in Appendix B, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)     EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to each of the applicants in applications nos. 889/15 ( Sidea v. Romania ) and 1199/15 ( Man   v.   Romania ), in respect of costs and expenses; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   6.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 June 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Andrea Tamietti   Vincent A. De Gaetano Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX A   No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Place of residence Communicated complaints Government’s preliminary objections Amount claimed by the applicants under Article 41 of the Convention 1. 889/15 22/12/2014 Lenuța SIDEA 14/06/1955 Deva   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 1,650 as pecuniary damage; EUR 500,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 500 as lawyer’s fee. 2. 1199/15 22/12/2014 Victoria MAN 07/03/1927 Luduș   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 1,650 as pecuniary damage; EUR 500,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 500 as lawyer’s fee. 3. 18449/15 07/04/2015 Claudiu-Ștefan FRÂNCU 10/01/1972 Brașov   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. 4. 18520/15 07/04/2015 Constanța FRÂNCU 01/10/1951 Brașov   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. 5. 22724/15 05/05/2015 Daniel ALEXE 13/06/1971 Brașov   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. 6. 28561/15 09/06/2015 Viorel ALEXE 19/07/1966 La Ciotat, France   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. 7. 29928/15 11/06/2015 Ciprian-Gabriel ALEXE 17/04/1975 Roznov, Neamț County   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. 8. 29946/15 09/06/2015 Cristina DONOSA 04/05/1969 Torino, Italy   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. 9. 29949/15 09/06/2015 Rodica ALEXE 26/03/1973 Rosta, Italy   Art. 2, 6 § 1 None EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. 10. 30368/15 15/06/2015 Cătălin-Alexandru GIURCANU 29/08/1973 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 11. 30371/15 15/06/2015 Paraschiva GHIMBOAȘĂ 03/06/1953 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 12. 30376/15 15/06/2015 Filip GHIMBOAȘĂ 21/08/1946 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 13. 30383/15 15/06/2015 Daniela-Nicoleta ARGHIROV 27/07/1979 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 14. 30386/15 15/06/2015 Ana-Valentina ION 03/10/1988 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 15. 30390/15 15/06/2015 Georgeta ION 04/02/1958 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 16. 30393/15 15/06/2015 Doina-Liliana FRANGA 14/03/1938 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 Lack of victim status   EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 17. 30395/15 15/06/2015 Victor FRANGA 02/10/1940 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 Lack of victim status   EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 18. 30397/15 15/06/2015 Lavinia-Simona FELDMANN 14/02/1976 Ruben, Germany   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 19. 30435/15 15/06/2015 Mihaela-Silviana TULEA 20/10/1980 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 20. 30488/15 15/06/2015 Floarea VINTILĂ 07/09/1941 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 21. 30489/15 15/06/2015 Ioana BARBU 24/07/1948 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 22. 30493/15 15/06/2015 Ion BARBU 22/04/1943 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 23. 30496/15 15/06/2015 Maria PETRE 09/08/1949 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 24. 30501/15 15/06/2015 Adriana-Alina ȘOROȘTINEAN 16/08/1981 Ciofliceni, Ilfov County   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 25. 30509/15 15/06/2015 Florica BALDOVIN 25/05/1929 Bucharest   Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 None EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 26. 39435/15 31/07/2015 Gavril SĂLĂJAN 05/08/1956 Brașov Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.     27. 39443/15 31/07/2015 Dan-Ilie STOICA 19/07/1970 Brașov Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   28. 39446/15 31/07/2015 Vasile ISTUDOR 17/01/1948 Brașov Art. 2 Out of six months   EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   29. 39449/15 31/07/2015 Viorel CATANA 28/02/1957 Brașov Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   30. 39670/15 31/07/2015 Răzvan Mircea DOBRIN 17/04/1989 Brașov Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   31. 39672/15 31/07/2015 Bela BEREȘ 27/09/1948 Brașov Art. 2 Out of six months   EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   32. 39674/15 31/07/2015 Lorena-Ioana DOBRIN 07/12/1984 Brașov   Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   33. 39676/15 31/07/2015 Sorin GEORGESCU 03/09/1964 Brașov Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   34. 39678/15 31/07/2015 Vasile CIOBAN 18/01/1957 Vama Buzăului, Brașov County Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36. 35. 39679/15 31/07/2015 Adrian-Valentin GÂSCĂ [1] 01/07/1955 Brașov Art. 2 Incompatibility ratione temporis Out of six months EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   36. 39682/15 31/07/2015 Emma SANDOR [2] 22/01/1955 Brașov Art. 2 Incompatibility ratione temporis Out of six months EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.   37. 10533/16 15/02/2016 Radu-Gabriel FOGOROS 04/06/1965 Brașov Art. 2 None EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 50 as costs before the Court and EUR 700 as lawyer’s fee.   38. 55026/16 15/09/2016 Laris Mugurel NEAGU 04/01/1970 Florence, Italy   Art. 2 None EUR 50,000,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 50,000,000 as non-pecuniary damage. 39. 56527/16 15/09/2016 Dan MAFTEI 25/10/1967 Bucharest   Art. 2 None EUR 3,500,000 as pecuniary damage; EUR 3,500,000 as non-pecuniary damage.     APPENDIX B   No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Place of residence Applicant’s representative Particular circumstances of the application Applicable Article Amount to be paid by the respondent State under Article 41 of the Convention 1. 889/15 22/12/2014 Lenuța SIDEA 14/06/1955 Deva Ovidiu Vasile FILIPESCU Deva Sister of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage EUR 500 (five hundred euros) as costs and expenses   2. 1199/15 22/12/2014 Victoria MAN 07/03/1927 Luduș Ovidiu Vasile FILIPESCU Deva Mother of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage EUR 500 (five hundred euros) as costs and expenses   3. 18449/15 07/04/2015 Claudiu-Ștefan FRÂNCU 10/01/1972 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage   4. 18520/15 07/04/2015 Constanța FRÂNCU 01/10/1951 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Widow of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 5. 22724/15 05/05/2015 Daniel ALEXE 13/06/1971 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 6. 28561/15 09/06/2015 Viorel ALEXE 19/07/1966 La Ciotat, France   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage         7. 29928/15 11/06/2015 Ciprian-Gabriel ALEXE 17/04/1975 Roznov, Neamț County     Vasile TUDOR Codlea Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 8. 29946/15 09/06/2015 Cristina DONOSA 04/05/1969 Torino, Italy   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 9. 29949/15 09/06/2015 Rodica ALEXE 26/03/1973 Rosta, Italy   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 10. 30368/15 15/06/2015 Cătălin-Alexandru GIURCANU 29/08/1973 Bucharest   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on the night of 23/24 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 11. 30371/15 15/06/2015         30376/15 15/06/2015 Paraschiva GHIMBOAȘĂ 03/06/1953 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County   Filip GHIMBOAȘĂ 21/08/1946 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Parents of a victim shot in Bucharest on the night of 23/24 December 1989 and deceased on 25 December 1989. Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non ‑ pecuniary damage 12. 30383/15 15/06/2015       30386/15 15/06/2015       30390/15 15/06/2015 Daniela-Nicoleta ARGHIROV 27/07/1979 Bucharest   Ana-Valentina ION 03/10/1988 Bucharest     Georgeta ION 04/02/1958 Bucharest   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Daughters and widow of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 23 December 1989. Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non ‑ pecuniary damage 13. 30393/15 15/06/2015     30395/15 15/06/2015 Doina-Liliana FRANGA 14/03/1938 Bucharest   Victor FRANGA 02/10/1940 Bucharest   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Parents of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 22 December 1989. Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non ‑ pecuniary damage 14. 30397/15 15/06/2015 Lavinia-Simona FELDMANN 14/02/1976 Ruben, Germany   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Injured by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage   15. 30435/15 15/06/2015 Mihaela-Silviana TULEA 20/10/1980 Bucharest   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 16. 30488/15 15/06/2015 Floarea VINTILĂ 07/09/1941 Bucharest   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Mother of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on the night of 23/24 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 17. 30489/15 15/06/2015     30493/15 15/06/2015 Ioana BARBU 24/07/1948 Bucharest   Ion BARBU 22/04/1943 Bucharest   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Parents of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 23 December 1989. Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non ‑ pecuniary damage 18. 30496/15 15/06/2015 Maria PETRE 09/08/1949 Bucharest Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Widow of a victim killed in a plane crash in Vișina, Dâmbovița on 28 December 1989, linked to the military operations of December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).     2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 19. 30501/15 15/06/2015 Adriana-Alina ȘOROȘTINEAN 16/08/1981 Ciofliceni, Ilfov County   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 20. 30509/15 15/06/2015 Florica BALDOVIN 25/05/1929 Bucharest   Ionuț MATEI Bucharest Mother of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 21 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 21. 39435/15 31/07/2015 Gavril SĂLĂJAN 05/08/1956 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 22. 39443/15 31/07/2015 Dan-Ilie STOICA 19/07/1970 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by grenade explosion in Brașov on 24 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 23. 39446/15 31/07/2015 Vasile ISTUDOR 17/01/1948 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 24. 39449/15 31/07/2015 Viorel CATANA 28/02/1957 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 25. 39670/15 31/07/2015 Răzvan Mircea DOBRIN 17/04/1989 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on the night of 22/23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 26. 39672/15 31/07/2015 Bela BEREȘ 27/09/1948 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 27. 39674/15 31/07/2015 Lorena-Ioana DOBRIN 07/12/1984 Brașov       Vasile TUDOR Codlea Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on the night of 22/23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non ‑ pecuniary damage 28. 39676/15 31/07/2015 Sorin GEORGESCU 03/09/1964 Brașov     Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 29. 39678/15 31/07/2015 Vasile CIOBAN 18/01/1957 Vama Buzăului, Brașov County   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 30. 39679/15 31/07/2015 Adrian-Valentin GÂSCĂ [3] 01/07/1955 Brașov Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage   31. 39682/15 31/07/2015 Emma SANDOR [4] 22/01/1955 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 32. 10533/16 15/02/2016 Radu-Gabriel FOGOROS 04/06/1965 Brașov   Vasile TUDOR Codlea Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage   33. 55026/16 15/09/2016 Laris Mugurel NEAGU 04/01/1970 Florence, Italy   Nela MUNICH IONESCU Florence, Italy Injured by gunfire in Bucharest on 21 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage 34. 56527/16 15/09/2016 Dan MAFTEI 25/10/1967 Bucharest   Nela MUNICH IONESCU Florence, Italy Injured by gunfire nshot in Bucharest on 21 December 1989. Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).   2 EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage   [1] Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “01/07/2015” [2] Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “22/01/2015” [3] Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “01/07/2015” [4] Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “22/01/2015”