CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 17 April 2014 and 2 June 2015   THIRD SECTION Application no. 41720/13 Nicolae Virgiliu TĂNASE against Romania lodged on 21 June 2013     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS     1.     Was the applicant’s right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention breached in the present case? If so, did the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities satisfy the conditions of adequacy and promptness as required under the procedural head of Articles 2 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s right to physical integrity guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention breached in the present case? If so, given the procedural protection against a breach of the applicant’s right to physical integrity, did the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities satisfy the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention?