CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2024

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sBFF09201 { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAA31CF24 { width:39.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s899CE26F { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85C470FA { width:18.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s77A46D21 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8A71A6DB { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s48DC9879 { width:39.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF94473E2 { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59E6A1C6 { width:18.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s183E9B22 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 3 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17473/20 Alexandru Adrian RISTIN and Others against Romania lodged on 6 April 2020 communicated on 17 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns investigations into the consequences of a gas explosion caused by the alleged deterioration, after works on the water pipes, of the underground gas pipe situated in the vicinity of the applicants’ property. The first applicant (Mr Alexandru Adrian Ristin), 16 years of age at the time, was severely injured in the explosion, his friend A.A. lost her life and the applicants’ home was destroyed. When the explosion occurred the second applicant (the first applicant’s grandfather) was also at home but in an annex of the house and suffered no injuries, whereas the third and fourth applicants (the first applicant’s parents) were away for the night. The applicants complain that the criminal investigation, which was started by the authorities in the aftermath of the accident and in which the applicants participated as civil parties, was unreasonably long (from 18 October 2010 to 5   December 2019) and was ineffective, and that because of errors in evidence ‑ gathering the Timişoara Court of Appeal, in its final decision of 5   December 2019, found that it was unable to clarify the responsibility of the water supply company and of the gas distribution company in the accident. For those reasons, the applicants were unable to obtain redress for their damage.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In so far as the applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the destruction of their house and possessions in the explosion of the gas pipe, have they exhausted the effective domestic remedies? In addition: (a)     Should the applicants have lodged a separate claim for compensation with the civil courts, based on the general provisions concerning civil liability enshrined in the Civil Code? (b)     Would such an action before the civil courts constitute an effective remedy in the specific circumstances of the case, bearing in mind that in the final decision of 5   December 2019 the Timişoara Court of Appeal concluded that it was unable to clarify the responsibility of those potentially involved in the accident because of deficiencies in the evidence-gathering in the initial stages of the criminal investigation?   2.     Can the first applicant claim to be the victim of a violation of his right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v.   Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §   142, 25 June 2019)?   3.     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), in respect of the first applicant: (a)   was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no.   48939/99, §§   91-96, ECHR 2004-XII)? (b)     did the investigation last too long, bearing in mind that it started on 18   October 2010 and ended on 5   December 2019? (c)     was the investigation capable of promptly establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victims (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, §§   137 ‑ 38)?   4.     For the same reasons as those detailed above, did the State comply with its positive obligation to protect the first applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, §§   125 ‑ 28)?   5.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, bearing in mind the State’s positive obligations in this area (see, notably, Öneryıldız , cited above, §§ 135-36, and Blumberga v.   Latvia , no. 70930/01, §§   64 ‑ 69, 14   October 2008)? (a)     did the authorities do everything within their power to protect the applicants’ possessions from the risk of destruction in the gas pipe explosion (see Kurşun v. Turkey , no. 22677/10, § 115, 30 October 2018, and Öneryıldız , cited above, § 136)? (b)     has the State put at the applicants’ disposal adequate remedies whereby they could vindicate their rights and receive reparation for the loss of their house and possessions destroyed by the explosion of the gas pipe (see Blumberga , cited above, § 67)?   6.     Concerning the companies Aquatim Timişoara and E.On Gaz Distribuţie, which were placed under investigation in connection with the explosion of the gas pipe: are they public utility and/or State ‑ owned companies capable of engaging the State’s responsibility for the accident and its consequences (see, mutatis mutandis , Libert v.   France , no.   588/13, § 38, 22 February 2018, and Kotov v. Russia [GC], no.   54522/00, § 92, 3 April 2012)?     List of applicants in application no. 17473/20 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Alexandru Adrian RISTIN 1994 Romanian Săcălaz 2. Ioan PARAIPAN 1950 Romanian Săcălaz 3. Camelia RISTIN 1973 Romanian Săcălaz 4. Pompiliu RISTIN 1969 Romanian Timişoara