CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s87680A70 { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 4 February 2020 Published on 24 February 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 47751/18 Adrian-Florin SMARANDA against Romania and 1 other application (see list appended) The applicants are Romanian nationals. Their personal details and the dates of introduction of their respective applications are set out in the appended table. 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 Sidea and   Others v. Romania ([Committee], no. 889/15 and 38 others, §§   4 ‑ 11, 5   June 2018). In respect of the applicants, the facts can be summarised as follows. On 23 December 1989, the applicants’ father was shot dead in Reșița during the events that led to the overthrow of the communist regime. The main criminal investigation opened in 1990 concerning the use of force, both prior to and following the overthrow of communism, was the subject matter of file no. 11/P/2014 recorded with the domestic military prosecutor’s office. 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 of the charges were res judicatae . In June 2016 the High Court of Cassation and Justice upheld a decision by the Prosecutor General to quash the prosecutor’s decision of 14   October 2015 and reopen the case. On 5 April 2019 the prosecutor’s office sent to trial several individuals (namely the former Romanian President, former Romanian Prime-Minister and former commander of the Romanian Air Force at the material time) for crimes against humanity, and closed the investigation with regard to other individuals for different reasons preventing the continuity of criminal proceedings (i.e. some of the charges were res judicatae, some of the suspects died or some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences). The proceedings are currently pending before the Preliminary Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention about the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities, capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible for their father’s death during the events of December 1989 in Reșița. 2.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in Reșița. COMMON QUESTIONS 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 case compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     As regards the procedural protection of the right to a fair trial, was the length of the criminal proceedings 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 Represented by Particular circumstances of the application Complaints to be communicated (Articles)   47751/18 01/10/2018 Adrian-Florin SMARANDA 16/05/1985 Reșița David-Daniel DEACONESCU Son of a victim killed by gunshot on 23 December 1989 in Reșița 2, 6 § 1   22236/19 09/04/2019 Adina-Laura SMARANDA 09/03/1984 Reșița   David-Daniel DEACONESCU Daughter of a victim killed by gunshot on 23 December 1989 in Reșița 2, 6 § 1