CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2026

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } Published on 23 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 52405/22 Sorin-Octavian BUTUZA against Romania lodged on 1 st November 2022 communicated on 4 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant against B.V., his father’s wife. After his father died in October 2020, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against B.V. for attempted murder, domestic violence, and family abandonment. The applicant accused B.V. of submitting his father, aged 84, who suffered from several medical conditions (Parkinson’s disease, heart condition, prostate cancer), to ill treatment, leaving him without food or water for long periods of time and physically assaulting him on several occasions. On 24 February 2022, the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Brașov County Court decided to discontinue the investigation with respect to the attempted murder offence since the constitutive elements of the offence were not met and to continue the investigation for domestic violence and family abandonment. On 22 July 2022, the public prosecutor decided to close the investigation also with regard to these two offences, arguing that, even though the evidence in the file showed that the applicant’s father had a strained relationship with his wife and a precarious health condition, as well as the fact that he presented several lesions when he was examined at the hospital five   days before his death (a lesion in the left parieto-occipital region and a post-traumatic abrasion on his left foot), there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was subjected to ill treatment by his wife. The applicant submitted a complaint against the public prosecutor’s decision, which was dismissed as inadmissible by a final decision of 14   October 2022 of the Brașov District Court. The Court held that the applicant did not have “locus standi” to challenge the public prosecutor’s decision, as he was not an injured party ( “parte vătămată” ) but merely a person who denounced the alleged offenses ( “denunțător” ). The Court also held that the applicant had no personal interest in the case, and thus, the procedural remedies provided by domestic law for situations when a criminal investigation was discontinued were not available to him. The applicant did not join the criminal proceedings as a civil party. Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the investigation carried out by the domestic authorities was ineffective, in particular since the prosecutor did not accede to his request to hear several witnesses he had proposed. He further submits that he was denied access to a court because the Brașov District Court dismissed his complaint on purely procedural grounds without assessing its merits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     (a) Can the applicant in the present case claim to be a victim of a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (see Stepanian v. Romania , no. 60103/11, §§ 32-38, 14   June 2016)?   (b) In the negative, was there an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the applicant’s father, as the direct victim of alleged ill-treatment, was able to effectively exercise his rights under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard in particular to his age, medical condition and state of dependency on the alleged aggressor?   2.     Was the domestic authorities’ investigation into the allegations of ill ‑ treatment and death of the applicant’s father in line with the State’s procedural obligations under Article   2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 165-66, 25   June 2019)?   In particular, was the alleged refusal by the prosecutor to examine certain witnesses proposed by the applicant in breach of the State’s procedural obligations under Article   2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , M.C. and A.C. v. Romania , no. 12060/12, § 111, 12 April 2016, and Boacă and Others v. Romania , no. 40355/11, §§ 86 et seq., 12   January 2016)?   3.     Was the dismissal by the Brașov District Court of the applicant’s complaint against the public prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings on account of his lack of “locus standi” in breach of the State’s procedural obligations under Article   2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see   Prizreni v. Albania , no. 29309/16, §§ 18-20 and 51, 11 June 2019)?   The Government is invited to provide the Court with a copy of the file concerning the criminal proceedings into the allegations of ill-treatment and death of the applicant’s father.