CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 129 April 2010 Florea Pop v. Roumanie - 63101/00 Judgment 6.4.2010 [Section III] Article 34 Victim Domestic court judgment acknowledging and affording appropriate and sufficient redress for Convention violation: loss of victim status   Facts – In 1993 the applicant’s son was placed in a secure training centre for minors. He was subsequently transferred to a prison hospital, having been diagnosed with serious health problems by the centre’s doctor. He died in January 1994, after being released and admitted to a public hospital. Criminal proceedings were opened at the applicant’s request, but the case was closed by the military authorities. In 1998 the applicant also sued for damages in the district court. In 2004, after various referrals and adjournments, a court of appeal ordered the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate General for Prisons, jointly and severally, to pay a sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage, finding that liability for the death lay with staff responsible for the young man’s supervision and care. In 2005 the court of appeal dismissed an appeal by the Ministry and the Directorate General. Law – Articles 2 and 3: Admissibility in their procedural aspect – Among other complaints, the applicant had alleged that the competent authorities had not carried out an effective, impartial and diligent investigation aimed at identifying those responsible for her son’s death and at bringing them to account. The Court noted, however, that in the proceedings for damages the domestic courts had found that the reasons for her son’s death had been the negligent acts and omissions of the staff responsible for the young man’s supervision and care while in custody, and also that the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate General for Prisons were liable as, being the employers, they were in a position to identify those responsible. Moreover, the court of appeal had stipulated the authorities’ procedural obligations and had noted a number of shortcomings in the criminal proceedings in question. The Court took the view that the findings of the domestic courts, especially the Court of Appeal, could constitute recognition, at least in substance, that there had been a violation of Articles   2 and   3 in their procedural aspect. In addition, the applicant had obtained, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, an amount which, although lower than that generally awarded by the Court in similar cases concerning Romania, was not without any relationship of proportionality, bearing in mind that the domestic courts could not have awarded the applicant more than she herself had claimed. Accordingly, the applicant had already been awarded compensation that could be regarded as appropriate and sufficient. The Court therefore accepted the Government’s preliminary objection that she no longer had victim status. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione personae ). The Court also found inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Articles   2 and   3 in their substantive aspect, and under Article 6 §   1 (access to court) and Article   13 in conjunction with Articles   2, 3 and 6 §   1 (access to court). Lastly, it found a violation of Article 6 §   1 concerning the length of the proceedings for damages and a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy by which to seek redress for that complaint.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes