CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2017

.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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 May 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 74269/16 Adriana Laura PICU against Romania and 7 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Romanian nationals. The applicants’ personal details and the dates of their respective applications are set out in the appended table. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as 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) and Ecaterina Mirea and   Others v. Romania (nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§   10-15, 12   April 2016). In respect of the applicants, the facts can be summarised as follows. Between 23 and 25 December 1989 the applicants’ close relatives were shot dead in Bucharest and Târgoviște during the events that led to the overthrow of the communist regime. The main criminal investigation opened in 1990 into the use of force, both prior to and following the overthrow of communism, is currently the subject matter of file no.   11/P/2014. On 14 October 2015 the prosecutor’s office closed the investigation, finding that the complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty and partly ill ‑ founded. It also found that some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences, and some were res judicatae . By a Prosecutor General’s decision of April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016, the decision of 14   October 2015 was annulled. The investigation is still ongoing before the domestic authorities. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities in order to punish those responsible for the death by gunshot of their close relatives during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Târgoviște. Relying on 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 Târgoviște. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Association   “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania , nos. 33810/07 and   18817/08, §§   133-35, 24 May 2011), was the investigation in the present cases compatible with the procedural requirements 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? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Particular circumstances of the application Complaints to be communicated   74269/16 28/11/2016 Adriana Laura PICU 25/07/1972 Târgoviște   Daughter of a victim killed by gunshot on 24 December 1989 in Târgoviște.     2 and 6 § 1   74276/16 28/11/2016 Maria DUMITRESCU 18/06/1952 Târgoviște   Widow of a victim killed by gunshot on 24 December 1989 in Târgoviște.     2 and 6 § 1   74301/16 28/11/2016 Daniel-Ciprian DUMITRESCU 10/10/1978 Târgoviște   Son of a victim killed by gunshot on 24 December 1989 in Târgoviște.     2 and 6 § 1   76016/16 05/12/2016 Marioara ZĂRNESCU 19/01/1955 Bucharest   Widow of a victim injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25   December 1989 in Bucharest.   2 and 6 § 1   76018/16 05/12/2016 Florin ZĂRNESCU 02/11/1972 Bucharest   Son of a victim injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25   December 1989 in Bucharest.   2 and 6§1   23375/17 20/03/2017 Constantin FILIP 29/01/1976 Măgurele, Ilfov County Son of a victim killed by gunshot on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.   2 and 6 § 1   23704/17 20/03/2017 Steluța Tarța 03/09/1968 Bucharest Daughter of a victim killed by gunshot on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.   2 and 6 § 1   24299/17   21/03/2017 Nicolae Zărnescu 05/08/1979 Torrejon de Ardoz, Spain Son of a victim injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25   December 1989 in Bucharest.   2 and 6 § 1