CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 novembre 2023

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s42FEB1BD { width:30.88pt; display:inline-block } .sA4FA8E5F { width:143.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA3D40E95 { width:52.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD66FB302 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0CCF380 { width:111.82%; border-collapse:collapse } .sAEEB25D2 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2A1773AF { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s527C44DB { width:20.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s76986622 { width:22.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7898AFFC { width:25.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s906D09D5 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE87FB53 { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6509952B { width:20.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s346F4FF1 { width:22.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE140995B { width:25.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 7828/23 Ștefan-Marian RUSU and Others against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović, President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   7828/23) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 February 2023 by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) and were represented by Ms C. Mărgineanu, a lawyer practising in Craiova; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns an alleged   violation   of   Article 2   of the Convention,   owing to the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accidental death of   the applicants’ husband and father. 2.     The applicants are the widow and children of the late L.R., who lost his life in a work accident. L.R. was an employee of company B, whose activity consisted in the transportation of heavy equipment. 3.     The work accident occurred on 13 July 2021, while unloading an excavator from a transport platform. After L.R.’s work colleague, R.D., removed the safety devices, the mobile rear part of the platform fell and crushed L.R., who was standing behind it. 4 .     Immediately after the accident, the Filiași Police Department arrived at the scene and established the crime scene report, which included identification data of the victim and of R.D., various measurements, a description of the transport platform and of the area where the accident happened as well as photographs. 5.     The same day a criminal investigation was started against R.D. for manslaughter and breach of health and safety regulations. The police took written statements from several eyewitnesses. 6.     The prosecutor’s office attached to the Filiaşi District Court confirmed the initiation of an investigation having R.D. as main suspect – for involuntary manslaughter under Article 192 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code, for failure to observe the safety regulations while removing the safety devices. R.D. and two eyewitnesses were questioned. 7.     A technical expert opinion, commissioned by the prosecutor on 15 July 2021, pointed out to technical deficiencies of the transport platform, which could not have been noticed long before the accident. It also found that the victim was not wearing any protection equipment at the time of the accident. Moreover, his presence in the area behind the mobile rear part of the platform while unloading the excavator had been against the safety regulations, of which he should have been aware. 8.     The applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties on 23 August 2021. 9 .     On 14 February 2022, the applicants sought the conviction of the relevant managers of company B for having involuntarily caused the death of L.R. by failing to adhere to the relevant health and safety standards for this type of activity. They argued that there was evidence that the technical deficiencies in the platform mechanism had been known to them before the accident. The public prosecutor’s office rejected this request, as he found no indication of criminal negligence. 10 .     On 26 April 2022 the applicants submitted a request in writing that the public prosecutor’s office attached to Filiași District Court hear all the persons who had been involved in the loading of the platform and the transport supervisor. Their request was received after the prosecutor’s office had decided on 26 April 2022 to discontinue the investigation. 11 .     The investigation was concluded on 26 April 2022 with the prosecutor’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against R.D. because no criminal guilt could be established. The prosecutor examined the statements given by the witnesses as well as the findings of the technical expert report and concluded that R.D. could not have avoided the accident. 12.     On 3 May 2022 the public prosecutor rejected the applicants’ request for new evidence and noted that when the excavator had been put on the platform a few hours before the accident, the platform had been working. R.D. had visually checked the technical condition of the assembly and had not identified any problems, since the oil stains coming from the mechanism, which indicated a defect, could not been noticed. The prosecutor concluded that the applicant’s death had been caused by a fortuitous event, namely by the unforeseeable failure of the transport platform. 13.     On 15 June 2022 the chief prosecutor rejected the applicants’ challenges against the prosecutor’s decisions of 26 April and 3 May 2022. 14 .     The applicants raised objections before the pre-trial judge and asked for the criminal investigation of the case to be reopened. 15.     By a judgment of 25 October 2022, the pre-trial judge of the Filiași District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the investigation. The judge thoroughly examined the applicants’ objections and the available evidence and considered that they had been fully and clearly answered by the investigation and that no additional evidence or other investigative steps were necessary in the case. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 16.     Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the respondent State has not carried out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of their father and husband and that their challenge to the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the investigation had been examined in a superficial manner. They disagreed with the assessment of the evidence and the conclusions reached by the investigative bodies, complaining that their arguments regarding the criminal responsibility of company B and its employee, R.D., had not been properly addressed by the courts. 17.     The Court, as the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article 2 (see   Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018). 18.     The general principles concerning the criteria on the basis of which compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 2 is assessed by the Court are summarised in Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no.   41720/13, §§ 164-71, 25 June 2019. 19.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the tragic accident which resulted in the death of the applicants’ father and husband occurred on 13 July 2021. On the same date the Filiași Police Department initiated, of its own motion, a criminal investigation into the circumstances of the accident and took a series of measures aimed at discharging their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. A number of investigative actions were promptly carried out, including questioning of witnesses and the commissioning of a thorough technical expert report which aimed at of clarifying the circumstances in which the accident had occurred (see paragraph 4 above). The prosecutor concluded without undue delay that, based on all the evidence collected, R.D. could not be held responsible for the accident (see paragraph 11 above). 20.     The applicants, who joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties, were actively involved in the proceedings. Both during the investigation and before the pre-trial judge they were able to challenge the acts and measures implemented by the relevant authorities, and to ask for additional evidence to be included in the file (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above). They were able to appeal against the public prosecutor’s office’s decisions (see paragraph 14 above). The fact that some of their requests for additional evidence and some of their challenges were dismissed does not indicate that the investigating authorities and the pre-trial judge were unwilling to establish the circumstances of the accident and the liability of those involved (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, § 181). 21.     The Court notes that the applicant’s criticisms mainly concerned the assessment of the evidence gathered. The points of disagreement between the applicants and the investigating   authorities do not suffice, however, to show that there were shortcomings in the investigation or any impediment undermining its ability to establish the circumstances of the death of the applicants’ father and husband. 22.     In the light of the above considerations, the Court does not find sufficient grounds to conclude that the investigation or collection of evidence was ultimately insufficiently thorough. The domestic authorities’ decision to discontinue the proceedings was not taken hastily or arbitrarily. 23.     The Court also observes that the proceedings concerning the circumstances of the accident lasted less than one year and a half and therefore concludes that no unreasonable delays or lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in conducting the proceedings could be found in the current case (contrast Gina Ionescu v. Romania , no. 15318/09, § 41, 11   December 2012). 24.     The applicants had access to several domestic remedies in order to seek redress for the damage they had suffered as a result of the death of their father and husband. They had chosen to join their civil claims to the criminal proceedings opened by the authorities into the circumstances of the accident. In this connection, the Court notes after the criminal proceedings were discontinued the applicants did not seek compensation before a civil court. 25.     The Court reiterates that Article 2 does not guarantee the right to obtain a criminal conviction against a third party (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, § 160). Therefore, it considers that, in the absence of any apparent lack of thoroughness in the authorities’ examination of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s accident, their decision not to prosecute does not suffice to find the respondent State liable under its procedural obligation arising from Article 2 of the Convention. 26.     In view of the foregoing,   and notwithstanding the undoubtedly tragic events in this case,   the Court considers that no breach of Article 2 requirements can be observed in the circumstances of the case, the authorities having conducted an effective investigation for the purpose of establishing the circumstances and cause of the death of the applicants’ father and husband. 27.     It follows that the application   is manifestly ill-founded and must be dismissed in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2023.     Crina Kaufman   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of applicants: Application no. 7828/23   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ștefan-Marian RUSU 1995 Romanian Paisani 2. Maria-Livia DRĂGOI 1993 Romanian Cruset 3. Angelica RUSU 1971 Romanian Paisani