CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2018

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 21171/16 Gheorghe COBZARU against Romania lodged on 1 April 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 25 June 2013 the Court adopted a judgment in the case of Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania (no. 6978/08) finding a violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to the killing of the applicant’s son by a police officer and the subsequent ineffective investigation – which was still pending at the time of the delivery of the Court’s judgment. The current application concerns the alleged and prolonged lack of effectiveness of the investigation into the killing of the applicant’s son, which continued after the adoption of the Court’s judgment mentioned above and until its conclusion on 14 October 2015 by the judgment of the Bucharest County Court which confirmed the prosecutor’s conclusion of 4   June 2015 that the killing had been justified. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII, and Ciorcan and Others v. Romania , nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09, §§ 121-127, 27   January 2015), was the investigation concerning the killing of the applicant’s son, conducted by the domestic authorities between 25 June 2013 and 14 October 2015, in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?