CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 16 September 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25605/18 Ana PADINEANȚ against Romania lodged on 24 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns respectively the death of the applicant’s father and the applicant’s own physical injuries caused in the circumstances of a car accident, allegedly caused by a third party on 3 September 2012. The complaints refer to the authorities’ failure to carry out a prompt and effective investigation into the events. The inquiry is currently still pending before the prosecutor. The applicant’s complaint concerning the unreasonable length of the procedure was dismissed as inadmissible on 19   December 2016, in so far as the legal grounds relied on, namely Article   488 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, was applicable only to those investigations started following its entry into force in 2014. The applicant complained under Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention, claiming also that there was no remedy in the domestic law capable to speed up the inquiry. 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 case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 2, more particular in respect of the unreasonable length of the investigation, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?