CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 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 } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s94687DCB { width:10.44%; 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 } .s3A138DC3 { width:30%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDA068C08 { width:19.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s40EA47CF { width:18.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s96418EBF { width:21.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAB9013BE { width:10.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74DABE7C { width:30%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE4A319 { width:19.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6DBC7ED9 { width:18.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9ADA6CC9 { width:21.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 21258/23 Mihaela HANEA and Others against Romania lodged on 15 May 2023 communicated on 20 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the alleged failure of the Romanian authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of   S.N. in a work-related accident on 13 November 2013. The applicants are relatives (wife and two daughters) of the late S.N., an employee of a commercial company (company H.). An official criminal investigation in rem was launched after the accident. On 23 July 2015 criminal proceedings for non-compliance with the safety and health regulations at work and negligent killing were instituted against company H. and its employee in charge with the works supervision. The criminal proceedings were discontinued by the public prosecutor’s office attached to the Sibiu County Court several times (on 28 November 2017, 26 November 2019 and 8 April 2021) on the ground that no criminal offence had been committed. Each time the pre-trial judge of the Sibiu District Court remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office and ordered it to continue the criminal investigation, considering that not all the factual and legal aspects of the case had been clarified. By a final decision of 18 January 2023 (served on 23 February 2023), the pre-trial judge held that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued on the grounds that the prosecution of the offences in question had become time barred. The applicants complain that the criminal investigation into the cause of S.N.’s death was unreasonably long (almost ten years) and ineffective. They complain in particular about the lack of diligence of the investigative authorities, highlighting the multiple periods of time when no measures were taken in relation to the case and about the administration of evidence, which the pre-trial judge deemed improper and incomplete on three occasions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the death of S.N. satisfy the conditions of adequacy and promptness as required under the procedural head of Article 2 ( see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v.   Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§   164-171, 25   June 2019 )? Did the available legal remedies, taken together, and as provided for in law and applied in practice, secure legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victims?   APPENDIX Application no. 21258/23 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Mihaela HANEA 1990 Romanian Sadu 2. Florina Iulia MOLDOVAN 1990 Romanian Sadu 3. Leontina NOVAC 1969 Romanian Racovita