CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 10 February 2015   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45723/14 Elena BĂNCILĂ against Romania and 4 other applications (see list appended) 1.     The applicants are all Romanian nationals. The applicants’ personal details, as well as details of the events and domestic proceedings to which they were parties are set out in the appended table. The applicants are all represented before the Court by Mr Ionuț Matei, lawyer practicing in Bucharest. 2.     The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicants, are similar to those presented in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). They belong to the same historical context and relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings as those at issue in the above-mentioned case. They can be summarized as follows. 3.     Following demonstrations against the Government, on 17   December 1989, on an order from Nicolae Ceauşescu, President of the Republic, military operations were conducted in Timișoara and in the following days in other towns, causing many civilian victims. According to a letter of 5   June 2008 from the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, “more than 1,200 people died, more than 5,000 people were injured and several thousand people were unlawfully deprived of their liberty and subjected to ill treatment”, in Bucharest, Timişoara, Reşiţa, Buzău, Constanţa, Craiova, Brăila, Oradea, Cluj, Braşov, Târgu Mureş, Sibiu and other towns in Romania. In addition, it appears from Ministry of Defence documents, declassified by Government decision no.   94/2010 of 10   February 2010, that thousands of servicemen, equipped with combat tanks and other armed vehicles, were deployed in Bucharest and other cities. During the period of 17 to 30 December 1989 they used considerable quantities of ammunition. 4.     Many people, among which the applicants` relatives, were killed by gunshot during their participation in demonstrations against the communist regime, from 17 December 1989 in Timişoara, and from 21   December 1989 in Bucharest, Braşov and other cities and towns across the country. According to a report of 24 July 1990 by the Directorate of Military Prosecutor’s Offices ( Direcţia procuraturilor militare ), in the night of 21 to 22 December 1989 “48 persons died and 150 persons were injured in Bucharest as a result of the violent crackdown by the armed forces, including through the use of firearms”. 5.     Many victims were also killed or wounded by gunfire after 22   December 1989, the date on which the then Head of State was deposed. 6.     During 1990 the military prosecutor’s offices in Bucharest, Timişoara, Oradea, Constanţa, Craiova, Bacău, Târgu Mureş and Cluj opened investigations into the use of force and unlawful deprivation of liberty in the final days of December 1989. In a number of cases concerning the events in Timişoara and Cluj ‑ Napoca, the investigations culminated in transfer to the courts and the conviction of certain senior military officers (regarding the repression in Timişoara from 17 to 22 December 1989, see the case of Ş andru and Others v.   Romania , no. 22465/03, §§ 6-47, 8 December 2009). 7.     To date, the main criminal investigation into the use of violence, especially against civilian demonstrators, both prior to and following the overthrow of Nicolae Ceauşescu, is still pending and is the subject matter of file no. 97/P/1990. The most important procedural steps can be summarized as follows. 8.     On 20 September 1995, prosecutor S. in the military prosecutors’ office at the Supreme Court of Justice issued a decision discontinuing proceedings in case no. 97/P/1990, which concerned persons killed or injured by gunfire. 9.     By a decision of 7 December 2004, not communicated to the applicants, the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice set aside the decision of 20 September 1995, issued in case no.   97/P/1990, as unlawful and unfounded. 10.     By a decision of the same day, namely 7 December 2004, the military prosecutor’s office ordered the indictment of 102 persons, essentially officers, including high-ranking officers, from the Army, police and Securitate forces, for murder (Articles 174-176 of the Criminal Code), genocide (Article 357 of the Criminal Code), inhuman treatment (Article   358 of the Criminal Code), attempting, aiding and abetting in the commission of these offenses and participation lato sensu ( participaţie improprie ) in them, acts committed “during the period from 21 to 30   December 1989”. Sixteen civilians, including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service, were also charged. 11.     Several criminal investigations into the fatal crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989, which had initially been conducted separately, were joined to the investigation that was the subject matter of case no. 97/P/1990. 12.     By a decision of 15 January 2008, the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided to severe the investigation concerning the sixteen civilian defendants (including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service) from the investigation involving military personnel, and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 13.     By an Ordinance of 18 October 2010, the military prosecuting authorities decided not to institute criminal proceedings with regard to the acts committed by the military, partly for prescription and partly as unfounded. The investigation into the crimes committed by civilians, members of patriotic guards, members of the militia and prison staff was severed and jurisdiction was relinquished in favor of the prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 14.     These investigations are currently pending. COMPLAINTS 15.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the lack of an effective criminal investigation opened by the authorities in order to punish those responsible for the violent quashing of the anti-communist demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities of Romania.   16.     Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December   1989 in Bucharest and other cities of Romania. 17.     Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the determination of their claims. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the determination of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. and date of introduction   Applicant name   Date of birth   Place of residence           Particular circumstances of the application   45723/14 30/05/2014 Elena BĂNCILĂ 14/08/1944 Bucharest   Mother of a victim killed by gunshot in Bucharest on 24.12.1989. Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.     45780/14 30/05/2014 Anca Ioana VLASIN 05/01/1985 Bucharest   Daughter of a victim killed by gunshot in Bucharest on 23.12.1989. Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.     457238/14 30/05/2014 Matilda BIRBORĂ 29/07/1940 Crivina   Mother of a victim killed by gunshot in Reșița on 24.12.1989. Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.     45726/14 30/05/2014 Crsitian BIRBORĂ 02/04/1984 Reșița   Son of a victim killed by gunshot in Reșița on 24.12.1989. Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.     45779/14 30/05/2014 Gabriela Simina BIRBORA 25/09/1962 Reșița   Widow of a victim killed by gunshot in Reșița on 24.12.1989. Party in domestic file no. 97/P/1990.