CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   780 20.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Agache and Others v. Romania (application no. 2712/02 )   INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF AN OFFICER KILLED IN THE 1989 ANTI-COMMUNIST DEMONSTRATIONS   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants jointly 25,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicants are six Romanian nationals who live in Romania and Germany. They are the widow and children of Aurel Agache, a deceased miliţia officer.   On 22 December 1989, during anti-communist demonstrations in Târgu-Secuiesc, Mr   Agache was violently attacked by some of the town’s inhabitants who, having learnt that the Ceauşescus had fled, destroyed symbols of the regime, smashed shop windows and besieged the headquarters of the miliţia , attacking several officers including Aurel Agache. Having been injured, Mr   Agache was put in an ambulance. The crowd blocked the vehicle’s exit and several individuals removed Mr   Agache from the ambulance and beat him. He died instantly.   On 27 December 1989 an investigation was opened by the public prosecutor’s office at the County Court. Some demonstrators were questioned, and witnesses identified from photographs three men by the names of Reiner, Paisz and Konrad as having been involved in beating Mr   Agache. On 26   November and 4   December 1991 three individuals, Mr   Hejja, Mr   Paisz and Ms   F.-O., were placed under investigation for the murder of Aurel Agache.   In April 1992 the applicants applied to the public prosecutor to have the case transferred, complaining that local politicians were influencing the investigation and that the accused Hejja, Paisz and F.-O. had been released, allowing F.-O. to flee unlawfully to Hungary. The applicants received a reply informing them of difficulties in identifying the persons responsible and in hearing evidence from witness, some of whom had changed their statements.   No evidence was added to the investigation file between November 1992 and November 1997.   In October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal requested the public prosecutor’s office at the County Court to resume the criminal investigation. One of the accused, Mr Reiner, gave evidence to the public prosecutor. Mr   Konrad and Ms   F.-O., meanwhile, had left Romania for Hungary. On 15   December 1997 the prosecutor’s office at the County Court committed Mr   Hejja, Mr   Paisz, Mr   Reiner, Mr   Konrad and Ms   F.-O. for trial for manslaughter. The case was adjourned several times.   In April 1998 the applicants again applied to have the case transferred, on the grounds that the investigation had been open for eight years, that a local political party was exerting pressure and that they had been subjected to threats. The case was remitted to the Bucharest County Court. In December 1998 the court heard evidence from Mr   Reiner, and in January 1999 from Mr   Paisz and three witnesses. The other witnesses and defendants were summoned but failed to appear. Following the January hearing, the court ruled that it was no longer necessary or possible to hear evidence from the witnesses in question. Their statements contained in the investigation file were read out.   On the basis of the file and the statements made at the hearings of December 1998 and January 1999, the Bucharest County Court on 15   February 1999 found four of the accused guilty of manslaughter: Mr   Hejja and Mr   Paisz were sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, Ms   F.-O. to seven years’ imprisonment and Mr   Reiner to three years’ imprisonment, suspended. Mr   Konrad was acquitted for lack of evidence. The four persons convicted were ordered jointly and severally to pay ten   million   Romanian   lei to Aurel Agache’s widow for pecuniary damage and fifty million lei to each of the civil parties in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   In a judgment of 26   March 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the factual findings of the other courts and dismissed the appeals on points of law lodged by the two parties.   The sentences imposed were not executed, as one of the persons convicted was pardoned, another was granted conditional release and the remaining three were in Hungary. European arrest warrants were issued in respect of them: one warrant was not forwarded to the Hungarian authorities and the latter refused to enforce the other two. The enforcement proceedings brought by the applicants concerning their civil compensation claims are still pending.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2, the applicants complained that the investigation into the circumstances of their relative’s death had not been effective. They further complained under Article   6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) that the proceedings had been excessively long.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13   September 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   While the Court acknowledged that the investigation had been extremely complex, it noted that the proceedings had lasted for over twelve years, seven of those after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Romania on 20   June 1994. Between that date and November 1997 no measure had been taken with a view to concluding the investigation, nor had any procedural steps been taken.   The Court also took account of the socio-political context after 1989, with the transition from communism and the population’s hostility towards members of the former regime. However, it did not accept the Romanian Government’s argument that these factors justified the slowness of the proceedings and the authorities’ lack of activity.   The authorities had taken evidence from only three witnesses and two of the accused, and had based their findings on the statements made by the other witnesses during the investigation instead of hearing evidence from the eyewitnesses who had been found, in order to establish the facts and the identity of the perpetrators. Furthermore, they had not taken the necessary steps to secure the extradition of three of the persons convicted, to ensure that they served their prison sentences.   Accordingly, the Romanian authorities had not shown due expedition and diligence in conducting the criminal proceedings, which had failed to afford appropriate redress for the infringement of the values enshrined in Article   2 of the Convention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 in its procedural aspect.   The Court did not rule on the applicants’ complaint under Article   6, which covered the same ground as their Article   2 complaint.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.