CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 21 October 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31927/23 G.V. against Romania lodged on 11 August 2023 communicated on 4 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant’s daughter, A., who was 34 years old when, in the early hours of 25 July 2016, was found by her husband (X.) hanging from a tree inside their garden. On the same day in rem investigation for manslaughter started. In October 2016 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint for murder against X. In the absence of any investigative measure, despite a court’s order of February 2018 that the prosecutor complete the investigation within twelve   months, in October 2018 the case was reassigned to another prosecutor’s office. At the end of 2019 the prosecutor requalified the charges and dismissed the applicant’s request that certain investigative measure be taken. In January 2020 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation holding that A. had committed suicide. In August 2020 the competent court quashed that decision and ordered that the prosecutor commission a fresh postmortem report and organise crime scene reconstruction, as previously requested by the applicant. The prosecutor ordered that a fresh expert report be drawn up by December 2020, which the forensic experts did in November 2021. In February 2022 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation, which the competent court confirmed in April 2023, on account that there was no evidence that A.’s death was suspicious or in any way attributable to X. This decision was served on the applicant on 12 April 2023. The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention that the criminal investigation into the death of his daughter was ineffective for the following main reasons: (a) the excessive length of the investigation; (b) that the initial investigation was for manslaughter, which, in the circumstances, was illogical; (c) the prosecutor’s failure to adduce evidence ordered by the courts (hear witnesses, crime scene reconstruction, etc). Under Articles 3 and 8, the applicant further complains that despite available evidence the domestic authorities failed to consider whether A. had been a victim of domestic abuse. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Since the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.   37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 171-81, 14 April 2015; Nicolau. v. Cyprus , no.   29068/10, §§ 132-53, 28 January 2020; and Danciu and Others v.   Romania , no. 48395/16, §§ 76-97, 12 May 2020)? In particular, (a)   Did the investigation by the domestic authorities satisfy the requirement of promptness under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, was the lapse of more than three years between A.’s death and the first prosecutorial decision excessive?   (b)   Has the competent prosecutor complied with the courts’ orders of February 2018 and August 2020?