CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 décembre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s1E64D7D5 { width:73.5pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 }   925 08.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]     Sandru and Others v. Romania (application no. 22465/03)   NO EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION FOLLOWING THE VIOLENT REPRESSSION OF THE DECEMBER 1989 ANTI-COMMUNIST DEMONSTRATIONS IN TIMIŞOARA   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in its procedural aspect   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts The applicants, Horia Teodor Şandru, Ştefan Răducan, Silvia Benea and Daniela Grama (married name: Moldovan), are Romanian nationals who were born in 1941, 1959, 1928 and 1974 respectively and live in Timişoara (Romania). On 16 December 1989 demonstrations against the communist regime broke out in Timişoara. On 17   December 1989, on the orders of Nicolae Ceauşescu, President of the Republic, several high-ranking military officers, including Generals Victor Atanasie Stănculescu and Mihai Chiţac, were sent to Timişoara to re-establish order. There followed violent repressions which resulted in numerous victims. The first two applicants and the husband of the third applicant, Mr Trofin Benea, who were taking part in the demonstrations, were seriously injured by gunshots. The brother of the fourth applicant, Mr Alexandru Grama, was shot dead. The demonstrations continued until the fall of the communist regime on 22 December 1989. The above-mentioned generals rallied to the new authorities and in 1990 and 1991 they became Minister of Defence and Minister of the Interior respectively.   On 12 January 1990 the military prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into the repression of the demonstrations. On 29 March 1996 the military prosecutor‘s office at the Supreme Court of Justice issued a ruling that there was no case to answer; on an appeal by the association of victims of the repression of the Timişoara demonstrations, this ruling was set aside on 28 October 1997 by the head prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice. On 30 December 1997 the military prosecutor’s office remitted the two generals for trial before the Military Division of the Supreme Court of Justice on charges of murder and attempted murder. On 15 July 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice (sitting as a bench of three judges) sentenced them to fifteen years’ imprisonment and ordered them to pay, jointly and severally with the Ministry of Defence, compensation to the civil parties. On 25 February and 27 March 2000 the Supreme Court (a bench of nine judges) dismissed the appeals lodged by the defendants. On 7 August 2001 the Prosecutor-General of Romania lodged an application to have the Supreme Court’s judgments of 15 July 1999 and 25   February 2000 set aside for failure to respect the rights of the accused and erroneous application of the law. On 22   March 2004 the combined divisions (seventy-five judges) of the Supreme Court granted the application to have the judgments set aside. The case was re-entered on the list of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (as the Supreme Court has been re-named since 2004). Following the dismissal by the Constitutional Court of an objection alleging unconstitutionality, on 3   April 2007 the High Court (a bench of three judges) ordered that the accused serve the same sentence as that imposed on 15 July 1999. On 15 October 2008 the High Court (a bench of nine judges) definitively dismissed the appeals lodged against that judgment. Throughout all of those proceedings, examination of the case by the courts was adjourned on several occasions.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants alleged that the investigation had failed to determine promptly the responsibilities for the death of Ms Grama’s brother and the injuries inflicted on Mr Şandru and Mr Răducan and on Mrs Benea’s husband. The proceedings had not been conducted correctly since, given the positions held by the accused in the new post-1989 regime in Romania, the authorities had been reticent to investigate the case.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2003. In a partial decision on the admissibility on 6 April 2006, the Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the authorities at the relevant time had “materially” interfered with the right to life of the applicants or their relatives, since the Convention had not yet entered into force with respect to Romania at the time of the 1989 events (it entered into force on 20 June 1994).   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , Corneliu Liviu Popescu , ad hoc judge , and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 required by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when the use of lethal force against an individual had placed the latter's life in danger. In this case, an investigation was opened on the authorities' own motion as early as January 1990. The vast majority of the procedural measures were taken after the ratification of the Convention by Romania in 1994 and the Court therefore had jurisdiction to assess whether, from that date, they amounted to an effective investigation as required by Article 2.   In this connection, the Court noted that the proceedings opened in January 1990 ended only in October 2008. It noted that the investigation phase was entrusted to military prosecutors who, like the defendants themselves, were servicemen, subject to the principle of subordination to their hierarchy - and therefore to the defendants themselves, who, in 1990-1991, were Ministers of the Interior and Defence. In addition, the Court noted a total lack of activity by the prosecutor's office between April 1990 and March 1996. With regard to the proceedings before the courts, the Court observed that there had been repeated adjournments and long periods between the hearings. Although the first set of proceedings ended with the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment of 25 February 2000, the proceedings as a whole were subsequently nullified by the Prosecutor-General’s application to have the judgment set aside in favour of the convicted men, thus delaying final resolution of the case for a further eight years and several months.   Finally, while the Court recognised the undoubted complexity of the case, it considered that   the political and social implications could not justify the length of the investigation, as alleged by the Government. On the contrary, its importance for Romanian society ought to have prompted the domestic authorities to deal with the case speedily and without unnecessary delay, in order to prevent any appearance of tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (procedural aspect). Given that finding, it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1, alleging that the criminal proceedings were excessively long.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each of the applicants 5   000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) 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) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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.