CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s92C89BB8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:108pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sCA3E75FF { width:121.54%; border-collapse:collapse } .s6C2A95DF { width:6.38%; 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 } .s4AFFAFF { width:31.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s968D50DA { width:12.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DB7A033 { width:29.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBD7978B9 { width:6.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s53DF94CB { width:31.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s3B6D141E { width:12.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s968447F9 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sD3EBA4A9 { width:29.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Published on 21 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42000/21 Debora-Diana FŰLŐP and Others against Romania lodged on 9 August 2021 communicated on 2 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the killing by gunshot on 22 October 2017 of Mr   Fűlőp Laszlo by a police officer during an attempt to track down and apprehend several individuals – including the victim – who had been caught having allegedly illegally collected wood from a forest. The applicants listed in the appended table are the parents and three sisters of the late Mr Fűlőp Laszlo. They are all represented by Mr. Đorđe Jovanović from the European Roma Rights Centre. On 22 October 2017, by decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Mureș County Court, criminal proceedings were started for attempted intentional murder. The legal qualification changed by another decision on the same day to manslaughter. On 4 January 2019 a forensic report was admitted in evidence to the case file. Other evidence administered during the investigation phase includes witness statements, statements from injured parties/civil parties, and on-site investigation report. On 8 November 2019, a   plea-bargaining agreement was concluded between the accused and the prosecutor, approved by the Reghin District Court with a judgment of 29   July 2020, under which the accused admitted to having committed manslaughter. The accused police officer was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended. An appeal was lodged by the second applicant (the victim’s mother), requesting the rejection of the plea-bargaining agreement, annulment of the judgment in question, and referral of the case to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation, arguing that the offense committed in this case was murder by indirect intent and not manslaughter (negligent homicide). The second applicant’s appeal was dismissed as ill ‑ founded by a final decision of the Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal of 12   October 2020, notified to the second applicant on 9 February 2021. Complaining of a violation of the right to life, namely of the substantive obligation of the State to protect persons from the use of lethal force by State agents, and of the ineffective investigation regarding the death of their close relative, the applicants allege breaches of Articles 2 (substantive and procedural limb), 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In relation to Article 14, in   substance the applicants complain that ethnic prejudice played a role both in the killing of their relative and in the alleged shortcomings in the investigation. The applicants indicate that in discussions between state agents and in the documents issued by the domestic authorities, including in the first ‑ instance court’s judgment, the victim and the other persons apprehended by the police in the forest were explicitly and pejoratively designated as being of Roma ethnicity (references made to ‘Roma stealing wood from the forest’). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Having regard that 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), has Mr   Fűlőp Laszlo’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case (see Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania , no. 6978/08, §§   46-66 25 June 2013)? In particular, did the applicants’ late son/brother’s death result from a use of force which was “absolutely necessary” for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article, given the distance between the victim and the police officer and the dynamics of the victim’s movement or lack thereof?   2. 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), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? In this connection, has an effective investigation been conducted by the national authorities to establish whether the use of force had been absolutely necessary and proportionate (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§   110 ‑ 113 ECHR 2005 VII)?   In particular:   (a) Were the applicants genuinely involved in the investigation procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (see Al-Skeini and   Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 167, ECHR)?   (b) Did they have the possibility to challenge the requalification of the charge made during the criminal investigation phase, i.e., before the conclusion of the plea-bargaining agreement?   3. In respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 of the Convention, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have, within the meaning of this provision, an effective remedy under the domestic law to challenge any discriminatory treatment on ethnic grounds by the authorities during the criminal investigation and during the proceedings before the domestic courts? Did the applicants invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights under Article 14 of the Convention on which they now wish to rely before the Court?   4. Has the prohibition on discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 2, been infringed in the present case (see Nachova and Others , cited above, §§ 145-47, 160 and 161, ECHR)?   In particular:   (a) Given the victim’s Roma origin, was the lethal force used against him motivated by racial prejudice on the part of the State agents?   (b) Did the authorities take steps to investigate whether possible racist motives have played a role in the events which led to the death of the applicants’ next-of-kin?   (c) Was the subsequent investigation as such completely free from any ethnic bias towards the victim or the applicants?   I. The Government are invited to submit information with respect to the following:   (a) Provisions in the domestic law and/or the domestic judicial practice, if   any, which require or allow that evidence taken during the pre-trial investigation be re-administered, in whole or in part, before the trial court if the simplified procedure applicable to the plea-bargaining agreement is followed; (b) Provisions in the domestic law and/or the domestic judicial practice, if   any, which grant the victim’s next-of-kin the possibility to effectively challenge a plea-bargaining agreement on the merits, and not only concerning the fulfilment of formal conditions, in particular with regard to the administration of evidence and/or the legal classification of the offense either prior to its validation by the trial court or in the framework of appeal proceedings, so that a court would be required to rule on any such objections raised by the aggrieved party?   II. The Government are invited to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings, in particular a copy of the criminal investigation file.   APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Debora-Diana FŰLŐP 2008 Romanian Periș (Gornești) Jud. Mureș 2. Hajnal FŰLŐP 1976 3. Laszlo FŰLŐP 1972 4. Hajnal-Gizella LUKÁCS 1994 5. Terez-Noemi MARIAN 1998 Dumbrăvioara (Ernei) Jud. Mureș