CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; 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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB1F2AB73 { width:111.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s39E90776 { height:58.5pt } .s346C5142 { border-top:0.75pt solid #838383; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22155D7A { height:23.25pt } .s6E932242 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MARIANA POPA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 42163/18 and 4 others –see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mariana Popa and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the 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 the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents, most recently Ms   O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     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) and Lupu and Others v. Romania ([Committee], nos.   3107/19 and 16 others, §§ 3-7, 17 January 2023). 2 .     The applicants are persons who were either injured themselves by gunshot or whose close relatives were shot to death during the demonstrations in Bucharest and Reșița which took place in December 1989 and led to the fall of the communist regime. The applicant in application no.   9784/19 (Ms   Ion) suffered injuries that necessitated twenty   days of medical care. The applicant in application no.   9923/19 (Mr   Manu) suffered injuries that necessitated between sixty-five and seventy   days of medical care. The other applicants’   relatives were killed by gunshot during the same events. 3 .     In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice opened investigations, of its own motion, into the injury of the applicants or the deaths of their close relatives and of other participants in the events of December 1989. The main criminal investigation was registered under file no. 97/P/1990 (currently no.   11/P/2014). The applicants participated in the investigation as injured parties and subsequently joined civil claims to the proceedings. 4.     Between 1990 and 2007 the prosecutor decided, in different sets of proceedings concerning the applicants or their relatives, not to open an investigation, to discontinue the proceedings or to join them to the main criminal investigation. Their cases were all examined in the main criminal investigation, and the applicants brought civil claims. 5.     The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§   12-41) and lastly in Lupu and Others (cited above, §§ 3-7). 6.     On 5 April 2019 the military prosecutor’s office indicted several individuals (namely a former Romanian president, a former Romanian prime minister and a former commander of the Romanian air force) for crimes against humanity, and discontinued the investigation with regard to various other individuals for a range of reasons which prevented the continuation of criminal proceedings. 7 .     On 9 October 2020 the Preliminary Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered the return of the file to the military prosecutor’s office because of irregularities in the indictment. On 4 February 2021 the military prosecutor’s office recommenced proceedings after correcting the indictment. 8.     On 14 June 2024 the Preliminary Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice granted the complaints submitted by some of the parties, namely the accused and certain civil parties, against the indictment and ordered the prosecutor’s office to remedy the deficiencies that affected its legality. 9.     On 20 September 2024 the same court established, by a final decision, that the deficiencies had not been remedied and ordered the return of the file to the prosecutor’s office. 10 .     According to the latest information available to the Court on 4   October 2024, it appears that the case is pending before the military prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 11 .     The legal provisions relevant to the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the events of December 1989 are set out in Association “21   December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 95-100). 12.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, all applicants complained of the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for their injuries or for the death of their relatives during the events of December   1989 in Bucharest and Reşiţa. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in applications nos.   42163/18, 2234/19, 7613/19 and 22230/19, the applicants complained about the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989, as the investigation in which the applicants participated was opened ex officio in 1990 and is still ongoing. Relying on Article   13 of the Convention, in application no. 2234/19, the applicants complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of the investigation. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 13.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications and the similar legal issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     The Government raised the preliminary objection of lack of victim status in relation to applications nos. 2234/19 and 22230/19, because the respective applicants had not indicated the amount of civil claims requested. 15.     The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” 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). Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in cases where Article 2 of the Convention has been invoked in relation to the death or disappearance of close relatives in circumstances allegedly engaging the responsibility of the State, it has recognised the standing of the victim’s next-of-kin to submit an application even if the next-of-kin was not involved in the domestic procedure ( see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 98-100, ECHR 2014). 16.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that there is no evidence indicating an acknowledgement of the violation claimed by the applicants – ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation, due to its length and the authorities’ failure to involve them in the proceedings – or any redress afforded to them by the domestic authorities in this connection. Moreover, as the investigation had been opened by the authorities of their own motion (see paragraph 3 above), an application by the applicants to join the main investigation should have had no effect on the applicants’ standing (see Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania , nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§   24 ‑ 30, 12   April 2016). Similar considerations apply to the Government’s objection in the present case that some applicants did not quantify their compensation claims. 17.     Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection. 18.     The Court further notes that the complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 19.     The general principles concerning the effectiveness of an investigation into violent deaths have been summarised in Association “21   December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 133-35), Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos.   10865/09 and 2 others, § 322, ECHR 2014), and Lupu and Others (cited above, §   14). The Court has also previously held, with regard to bodily harm inflicted by agents of the State that did not end in the death of the victim, that the degree and type of force used and the intention or aim behind the use of force are relevant in assessing whether in a particular case the State agents’ actions in inflicting injury short of death are such as to bring the facts within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2 of the Convention (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI). In the circumstances of the present cases, in regard to the applicants injured by gunshot, the State agents used firearms to suppress the anti-communist demonstrations and the applicants were victims of conduct which, by its very nature, put their life at grave risk, even though, in the event, they survived (see also Şandru and Others v. Romania , no. 22465/03, §§   51 ‑ 54, 8   December 2009).   Article 2 of the Convention is thus applicable and the same principles regarding the effectiveness of the investigation apply. 20.     In the present case the Court notes that shortly after the events of December   1989, a criminal investigation was opened into the injury of the applicants or the deaths of their close relatives from gunfire. 21.     Bearing in mind its jurisdiction ratione temporis , the Court notes that the investigation in the present case was opened thirty-four years ago and is still ongoing, more than thirty years after Romania ratified the Convention on 20   June 1994. 22.     While being aware that steps were taken recently by the national authorities in order to pursue the criminal investigation into the events of December   1989, the Court cannot, however, depart from its previous conclusions concerning the shortcoming identified in Association “21   December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§   133 ‑ 45) and Alecu and Others v. Romania (nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, § 39, 27 January 2015), and concludes that the criminal investigation in the present case does not meet the required standards, in particular since it has not been conducted with the reasonable expedition required by the Convention (see paragraphs 3-10 above). 23 .     The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation into their cases. 24 .     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 25.     The applicants in applications nos. 42163/18, 2234/19 and 22230/19 complained that the criminal proceedings concerning the events of December   1989 had been excessively lengthy. They relied in that connection on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants in application no.   2234/19 also complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, of the absence of an effective domestic remedy to enable their claims to be determined. 26.     In the light of its finding under Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 24 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and/or Article   13 of the Convention (see, among other, Association “21   December 1989” and Others , cited above, § 181). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 27.     The applicants claimed the amounts set out in the appendix in respect of non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses for lawyers’ fees incurred before the Court. 28.     The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated. 29.     Having regard to the documents in its possession, 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 the appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 30.     The Court also considers it reasonable to award those applicants who made a claim for the reimbursement of costs the amounts set out in the appendix in respect of lawyers’ fees for the proceedings before the Court. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning Article 2 of the Convention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three   months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 July 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Simeon Petrovski   Ana Maria Guerra Martins   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases:   Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name, year of birth, place of residence Represented by Particular circumstances of the application Amount claimed under Article 41 of the Convention Amount to be paid by the respondent State under Article 41 of the Convention   1. 42163/18 27/08/2018 Mariana POPA 1979 Reșița David Daniel DEACONESCU Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire on 25 December 1989 in Reșița. EUR 20,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage;   EUR 2,750 for lawyer’s fees. EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage;   EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses. 2. 2234/19 12/12/2018 Ștefania-Alina BODO 1976 Bucharest Beatrice-Constantin BODO 1977 Bucharest Eleonora ARJOCA Sister of a victim killed by gunfire on 23 December 1989 in Bucharest. EUR 20,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. Brother of a victim killed by gunfire on 23   December 1989 in Bucharest. EUR 20,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 3. 9784/19 08/02/2019 Carmen ION 1970 Bucharest Eleonora ARJOCA Injured by gunfire on 22   December 1989 in Bucharest. EUR 20,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 4. 9923/19 08/02/2019 Nicolae MANU 1962 Bucharest Eleonora ARJOCA Injured by gunfire on 23   December 1989 in Bucharest. EUR 20,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 5. 22230/19 09/04/2019 Constantin-Lucian POPA 1981 Reșița David Daniel DEACONESCU Son of a victim killed by gunfire on 25   December 1989 in Reșița. EUR 20,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage;   EUR 2,750 for lawyer’s fees. EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage;   EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses.