CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 septembre 2018

.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 } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s165D87C7 { width:21.45pt; display:inline-block } .s90B2F37D { width:135.76pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .sF004B676 { 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 30440/15 Victoria Carmen STAICU against Romania and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   September 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 15 June 2015, 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 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix hereto. They were represented by Mr I. Matei, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 2.     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 3 .     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those described in Association   “21   December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos.   33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). They concern the events of December 1989 in Bucharest – Otopeni, leading to the overthrow of the communist regime, during which the applicants’ mother and other demonstrators were killed by gunfire. A criminal investigation into these events was opened by the domestic authorities under case file no.   59/P/1993. The case was referred to the criminal courts and by a decision of 3 April 2000, which became final on 19 February 2001, the Supreme Court of Justice convicted a senior military officer for unintentional manslaughter, sentencing him to eight years’ imprisonment and ordering him to pay compensation to the applicants’ father for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the victim’s death. The other two accused senior military officers were acquitted. 4.     The circumstances in which the applicants’ mother was shot have not been investigated under case file no. 11/P/2014 (former 97/P/1990), which is still ongoing at domestic level (see Association   “21   December 1989” and Others , cited above, § 143, and Sidea and Others v. Romania [Committee], no. 889/15, § 11, 5 June 2018). B.     Relevant domestic law 5.     The relevant legal provisions are described in Association   “21   December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§   95-100). COMPLAINTS 6.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the respondent State had failed 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 A.     Joinder of the cases 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to order their joinder (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). B.     Complaints under Article 2, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention 8.     The applicants’ complaints relate to the domestic authorities’ failure to carry out an effective and thorough investigation within a reasonable time into the events of December 1989 in Bucharest – Otopeni, during which their mother was killed by gunfire. 9.     The Government disagreed with this complaint and, amongst other submissions, argued that the applicants had not complied with the six-month time-limit, calculated from the date of the final domestic decision. 10.     The Court notes that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only examine complaints which have been submitted within six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. In the case at hand the investigation culminated in the conviction of a senior military officer for actions taken during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest – Otopeni, by a decision of 3 April 2000, which became final on 19 February 2001 (see paragraph 3 above). It follows that the applications, lodged on 15   June   2015, are inadmissible owing to non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and that they must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.   Andrea Tamietti   Georges Ravarani   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Place of residence 1. 30440/15 15/06/2015 Victoria Carmen STAICU 18/06/1979 Spring, TX, USA   2. 30445/15 15/06/2015 Teodor-Haralambie BICHI 10/02/1977 Bucharest   3. 30453/15 15/06/2015 Liviu-Florian BICHI 16/05/1975 Bucharest