CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s59A346EA { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAB235D59 { width:11.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s542796CB { width:11.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E8F6944 { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEC0F4CD9 { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF9DCC8B { width:34.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E97DE01 { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s37AF4F54 { width:11.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A80EB62 { width:11.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24B851EC { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68739EDA { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3D67D9A5 { width:34.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } Published on 14 March 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30168/21 Niculae ALECU against Romania and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 23 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the violent crackdown of the peaceful demonstration of June 1990, in Bucharest, which resulted in the applicants’ injury. The investigation was opened in 1990 and it is still ongoing before the domestic authorities. After the delivery of in the Court’s judgement in the case of Mocanu and Others v.   Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), on 12   June 2017, 14 individuals, including the former Heads of State and Government, respectively, at the date of the events were, for the first time in 27 years, sent to trial for crimes against humanity (event that led to a resolution, by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, closing the execution of the above-mentioned Grand Chamber judgement). Subsequently, this decision to send to trial the 14 individuals was quashed by a judgement of 8   May 2019, which became final on 20 December 2020, and the judge of the Preliminary Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered that investigations resume at the level of the prosecutor office, while excluding from the file, for procedural reasons, all the evidence gathered so far. The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 3 (procedural limb) of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and   2   others, §§ 352-353, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), was the investigation in the present cases compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   The Government is invited to submit factual information and relevant documents on the current state of the criminal investigations after the decision of 10 December 2020 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. APPENDIX List of cases No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by Notes 1. 30168/21 Alecu v.   Romania 04/06/2021 Niculae ALECU 1957 Bucharest Romanian Eleonora ARJOCA, Ionuţ MATEI, Antonie POPESCU The applicant was subjected to violence and injured during the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations that took place starting from 13 June 1990. He was subjected to violence at the hand of security forces, uniformed police officers and men in civilian clothing and miners. He was also subsequently detained. 2. 31914/21 Ștefoglu v.   Romania 11/06/2021 Ecaterina ȘTEFOGLU 1954 Bucharest Romanian Eleonora ARJOCA, Ionuţ MATEI The applicant was subjected to violence an injured during the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations that took place from 13 to 15 June 1990. She was subjected to violence at the hand of security forces, uniformed police officers and men in civilian clothing and miners. She was also subsequently detained. 3. 31924/21 Muraru v.   Romania 11/06/2021 Petre MURARU 1959 Bucharest Romanian Eleonora ARJOCA, Ionuţ MATEI The applicant was subjected to violence and injured during the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations that took place from 13 to 15 June 1990. He was subjected to violence at the hand of security forces, uniformed police officers and men in civilian clothing and miners. 4. 32936/21 Cuatu v.   Romania 11/06/2021 Cătălin CUATU 1956 Bucharest Romanian Eleonora ARJOCA, Ionuţ MATEI The applicant was subjected to violence and injured during the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations that took place from 13 to 15 June 1990. He was subjected to violence at the hand of men in civilian clothing and miners.