Last Updated on July 13, 2019 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SIDEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 889/15 and 38 other applications – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 June 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sidea and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 May 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in 39 applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Romanian nationals. The applicants’ personal details, the dates of their applications and names of their representatives are set out in the appended tables.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On16 December 2015, 14 September 2016 and 11 January 2017 the complaints concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation, length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 12-41, 24 May 2011).
5. The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and wereinjured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina which led to the fall of the communist regime.
6. In 1990the military prosecutor’s offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, including the applicants’injury or their close relatives’ death during these events. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). In a number of cases the prosecutor decided between 1991 and 1996 not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. Thesecases were further examined in the main criminal investigation file irrespective of a formal decision ordering re-opening, applicants being questioned by the prosecutor and raising civil claims, according to the circumstances of each case.
7. The most important procedural steps were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41), and also in Ecaterina Mireaand Others v. Romania(nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 6-15, 12 April 2016). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shownbelow.
8. On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main investigation, finding that the complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty, and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the occurrences could not be classified as offences and some were res judicatae (see Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania[Committee], no. 43629/13, § 11, 7 November 2017).
9. The decision of 14 October 2015 was annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. It was noted that the investigation in file no. 11/P/2014 was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date.
10. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities, the prosecutor’s office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events, verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television.
11. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (submitted by the parties on 13 April 2017 and 19May 2017), the criminal investigation was stillongoing.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
12. The legal provisions relevant for the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the events of December 1989 are mentioned in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 95-100);Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC] (nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 193‑196, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); and Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others ([Committee] cited above, §§ 12-14, with further references).
THE LAW
I. THE JOINDER OF THE CASES
13. The Court notes that the present cases concern the same factual circumstances and raise similar legal issues. Consequently, it considers it appropriate to order their joinder, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicants complained that the domestic authorities have not carried out within a reasonable time an effective investigation into the events of December 1989 occurred in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina, during which they were injured or their close relatives were killed by gunfire. They reliedon Article 2 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows:
Article 2
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally …”
A. Admissibility
15. The Government raised preliminary objections in relation to some of the applications (see Appendix A).
1. Government’s objection of incompatibility ratione temporis
16. The Government alleged that in applications nos. 39679/15 (Gâscă v. Romania) and 39682/15 (Sandor v. Romania) the criminal investigation had beencompleted before 20 June 1994, the date of ratification of the Convention by Romania.
17. The applicants submitted that the whole period should be examined, as the main criminal investigation in which they were parties was still ongoing.
18. The Court has already defined its jurisdiction ratione temporis in similar cases (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 114-118, 24 May 2011, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania[GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 207─211, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), concluding that it was competent to examine complaints relating to the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations into the events of December 1989 when the majority of the proceedings and the most important procedural measures were carried out after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Romania.
19. In the present case, the Court notes that after 20 June 1994 both applicants gave statements, asking for pursue of the criminal investigation and raising civil claims, participating as civil parties in the main criminal investigation (see paragraph 6 above). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case and it dismisses the objection.
2. Government’s objection of non-compliance with the six‑month time‑limit rule
20. The Government submitted that the applicants in applications nos. 39446/15 (Istudor v. Romania), 39672/15 (Bereş v. Romania), 39679/15 (Gâscă v. Romania) and 39682/15 (Sandor v. Romania) hadlodged their applications outside the six‑month time‑limit calculated from the date of the prosecutor’s decisions closing their cases.
21. The applicants contested this argument.
22. The Court relies on the principles adopted in respect of the six‑month time‑limit rule,as stated in its case-lawin cases where applicantshave availedthemselves of an apparently existing remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others, cited above, §§ 260 and 280).
23. In the present case, the Court notes thatthe applicants’ cases continued to be examined in the main criminal investigation,as they had been questioned by the prosecutor after the date of the aforementioned decisions; in addition, the subsequent decision adopted by the prosecutor’s office concerned the same circumstances of fact.Moreover, the latter decision was quashed andtheinvestigation was on 19 May 2017 still ongoing (see paragraphs 6–11 above).
24. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection.
3. Government’s objection of lack of victim status
25. The Government argued that the applicants in applications nos. 30393/15 (Doina-Liliana Franga v. Romania)and 30395/15 (Victor Franga v. Romania) lacked victim status, since their case had been finalised by a prosecutor’s decision closing their case and their complaint was not examined further in the main criminal investigation.
26. The applicants argued that they had victim status in the ongoing criminal investigation.
27. The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicants is not in principle sufficient to deprive them of their status as “victims” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006‑V).
28. In the present case, the applicants have been offered neither an acknowledgment of a rights violation nor any redress. The prosecutor’s failure to adopt a decision in the main criminal investigation filein respect of the circumstances of the applicants’ case could have no impact on the applicants’ standing, as the investigation had been initiated by the prosecutor’s office of its own motion and requests for a civil claim and pursuance of the proceedingsin respect of the death of the applicants’ close relative had been registered with the prosecutorin the main criminal investigation file (see paragraph 6above; see also, mutatis mutandis,Dobre and Others v. Romania, no. 34160/09, §§ 55-57, 17 March 2015).
29. Therefore, the Government’s objection is rejected.
4. Other reasons for inadmissibility
30. The Court notes that the applicationsarenot manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
31. The Government described the steps taken recently by the national authorities in order to complete the criminal investigation into the events of December 1989 and made reference to their previous arguments raised in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above) and Alecu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, 27 January 2015).
32. The Court reiterates that an investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of the circumstances of fact and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but of means (see Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 96, 4 May 2001, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002‑IV). The State’s obligation under Article 2 of the Convention will not be satisfied if the protection afforded by domestic law exists only in theory: above all, it must also operate effectively in practice and that requires a prompt examination of the case without unnecessary delays. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 195, 9 April 2009; Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 191, ECHR 2009; Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above, § 134; and Mocanu and Others, cited above, § 317).
33. In the present case, the Court notes that shortly after the events of December 1989 a criminal investigation was openedinto the applicants’ injury and/or the death of their close relatives from gunfire in these circumstances.
34. Bearing in mind its ratione temporis jurisdiction and regardless of the fact that the investigation was carried out by military prosecutors (see Elena Apostoland Others v. Romania, nos. 24093/14 and 16 others, § 34, 23 February 2016), the Court notes that the investigation in the present casewas opened more than twenty-eight years ago and it is still ongoing twenty‑four years after the Convention’s ratification.
35. In the light of the principles deriving from Article 2 regarding an effective investigation (Mocanuand Others, cited above, §§ 314-326), the Court considers that the criminal investigationdoes not meet the required standards, due to its lack of promptness and of reasonable expedition,the non-involvement of the applicants in the proceedings, and the lack of information provided to the public about its progress. Identifying shortcomings in this investigation that are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others(cited above, §§ 133-145) and Alecu and Others(cited above, § 39), the Court cannot therefore depart from its previous approach on the matter.
36. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation into their cases.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, under its procedural limb.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
37. Some of the applicantslisted in Appendix A complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Conventionaboutthe length of the criminal proceedings concerning the events of December 1989andunder Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy toenable their claims to be determined.
38. In the light of the finding relating to Article 2 (see paragraph 36 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles6 § 1 and/or 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities,Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above, § 181).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
39. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
40. The applicants claimed the amounts mentioned in Appendix A in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
41. The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated by evidence and excessive.
42. The Court considers on the one hand that the applicants have failed to demonstrate the existence of a casual link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects those claims. On the other hand, the Court considers that the violation of Article 2 of the Convention, under its procedural limb, has caused the applicants substantial non-pecuniary damage, such as distress and frustration. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards themthe amounts set out in Appendix B, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
43. The applicants also claimed costs and expenses, as well as the respective lawyers’ feesincurred before the Courtin the amounts indicated in Appendix A.
44. The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated.
45. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award each of the applicants in applications nos. 889/15 (Sidea v. Romania) and 1199/15 (Man v. Romania),the sum of EUR 500 covering the lawyer’s fee for the proceedings before the Court.Given the lack of any relevant documentation, it rejects the claim for costs and expenses and the lawyer’s fee raised in the remaining applications.
C. Default interest
46. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decidesto join the applications;
2. Declares the complaint concerning Article 2 of the Convention admissible;
3. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
4. Holdsthat there is no need to examine the admissibility and the merits of the complaints under Articles6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) the amounts set out in Appendix B, plus any tax that may be chargeable,in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to each of the applicants in applications nos. 889/15 (Sidea v. Romania) and 1199/15 (Man v. Romania), in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Andrea Tamietti Vincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX A
| No. | Application no. and
date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Date of birth Place of residence |
Communicated complaints | Government’s preliminary objections | Amount claimed by the applicants under Article 41 of the Convention |
| 1. | 889/15
22/12/2014 |
Lenuța SIDEA
14/06/1955 Deva
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 1,650 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 500,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 500 as lawyer’s fee. |
| 2. | 1199/15
22/12/2014 |
Victoria MAN
07/03/1927 Luduș
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 1,650 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 500,000 as non-pecuniary damage; EUR 500 as lawyer’s fee. |
| 3. | 18449/15
07/04/2015 |
Claudiu-Ștefan FRÂNCU
10/01/1972 Brașov
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. |
| 4. | 18520/15
07/04/2015 |
Constanța FRÂNCU
01/10/1951 Brașov
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. |
| 5. | 22724/15
05/05/2015 |
Daniel ALEXE
13/06/1971 Brașov
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. |
| 6. | 28561/15
09/06/2015 |
Viorel ALEXE
19/07/1966 La Ciotat, France
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. |
| 7. | 29928/15
11/06/2015 |
Ciprian-Gabriel ALEXE
17/04/1975 Roznov, Neamț County
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. |
| 8. | 29946/15
09/06/2015 |
Cristina DONOSA
04/05/1969 Torino, Italy
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. |
| 9. | 29949/15
09/06/2015 |
Rodica ALEXE
26/03/1973 Rosta, Italy
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1 | None | EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9. |
| 10. | 30368/15
15/06/2015 |
Cătălin-Alexandru GIURCANU
29/08/1973 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 11. | 30371/15
15/06/2015 |
Paraschiva GHIMBOAȘĂ
03/06/1953 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 12. | 30376/15
15/06/2015 |
Filip GHIMBOAȘĂ
21/08/1946 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 13. | 30383/15
15/06/2015 |
Daniela-Nicoleta ARGHIROV
27/07/1979 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 14. | 30386/15
15/06/2015 |
Ana-Valentina ION
03/10/1988 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 15. | 30390/15
15/06/2015 |
Georgeta ION
04/02/1958 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 16. | 30393/15
15/06/2015 |
Doina-Liliana FRANGA
14/03/1938 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | Lack of victim status
|
EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 17. | 30395/15
15/06/2015 |
Victor FRANGA
02/10/1940 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | Lack of victim status
|
EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 18. | 30397/15
15/06/2015 |
Lavinia-Simona FELDMANN
14/02/1976 Ruben, Germany
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 19. | 30435/15
15/06/2015 |
Mihaela-Silviana TULEA
20/10/1980 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 20. | 30488/15
15/06/2015 |
Floarea VINTILĂ
07/09/1941 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 21. | 30489/15
15/06/2015 |
Ioana BARBU
24/07/1948 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 22. | 30493/15
15/06/2015 |
Ion BARBU
22/04/1943 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 23. | 30496/15
15/06/2015 |
Maria PETRE
09/08/1949 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 24. | 30501/15
15/06/2015 |
Adriana-Alina ȘOROȘTINEAN
16/08/1981 Ciofliceni, Ilfov County
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 25. | 30509/15
15/06/2015 |
Florica BALDOVIN
25/05/1929 Bucharest
|
Art. 2, 6 § 1, 13 | None | EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 26. | 39435/15
31/07/2015 |
Gavril SĂLĂJAN
05/08/1956 Brașov |
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 27. | 39443/15
31/07/2015 |
Dan-Ilie STOICA
19/07/1970 Brașov |
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 28. | 39446/15
31/07/2015 |
Vasile ISTUDOR
17/01/1948 Brașov |
Art. 2 | Out of six months
|
EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 29. | 39449/15
31/07/2015 |
Viorel CATANA
28/02/1957 Brașov |
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 30. | 39670/15
31/07/2015 |
Răzvan Mircea DOBRIN
17/04/1989 Brașov |
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 31. | 39672/15
31/07/2015 |
Bela BEREȘ
27/09/1948 Brașov |
Art. 2 | Out of six months
|
EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 32. | 39674/15
31/07/2015 |
Lorena-Ioana DOBRIN
07/12/1984 Brașov
|
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 33. | 39676/15
31/07/2015 |
Sorin GEORGESCU
03/09/1964 Brașov |
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 34. | 39678/15
31/07/2015 |
Vasile CIOBAN
18/01/1957 Vama Buzăului, Brașov County |
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36. |
| 35. | 39679/15
31/07/2015 |
Adrian-Valentin GÂSCĂ[1]
01/07/1955 Brașov |
Art. 2 | Incompatibility ratione temporis
Out of six months |
EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 36. | 39682/15
31/07/2015 |
Emma SANDOR[2]
22/01/1955 Brașov |
Art. 2 | Incompatibility ratione temporis
Out of six months |
EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 100 as costs before the Court and EUR 7,500 as lawyer’s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.
|
| 37. | 10533/16
15/02/2016 |
Radu-Gabriel FOGOROS
04/06/1965 Brașov |
Art. 2 | None | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 50 as costs before the Court and EUR 700 as lawyer’s fee.
|
| 38. | 55026/16
15/09/2016 |
Laris Mugurel NEAGU
04/01/1970 Florence, Italy
|
Art. 2 | None | EUR 50,000,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 50,000,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
| 39. | 56527/16
15/09/2016 |
Dan MAFTEI
25/10/1967 Bucharest
|
Art. 2 | None | EUR 3,500,000 as pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,500,000 as non-pecuniary damage. |
APPENDIX B
| No. | Application no. and
date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Date of birth Place of residence |
Applicant’s representative | Particular circumstances of the application | Applicable Article | Amount to be paid by the respondent State under Article 41 of the Convention |
| 1. | 889/15
22/12/2014 |
Lenuța SIDEA
14/06/1955 Deva |
Ovidiu Vasile FILIPESCU
Deva |
Sister of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage
EUR 500 (five hundred euros) as costs and expenses
|
| 2. | 1199/15
22/12/2014 |
Victoria MAN
07/03/1927 Luduș |
Ovidiu Vasile FILIPESCU
Deva |
Mother of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage
EUR 500 (five hundred euros) as costs and expenses
|
| 3. | 18449/15
07/04/2015 |
Claudiu-Ștefan FRÂNCU
10/01/1972 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage
|
| 4. | 18520/15
07/04/2015 |
Constanța FRÂNCU
01/10/1951 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Widow of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 5. | 22724/15
05/05/2015 |
Daniel ALEXE
13/06/1971 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 6. | 28561/15
09/06/2015 |
Viorel ALEXE
19/07/1966 La Ciotat, France
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage
|
| 7. | 29928/15
11/06/2015 |
Ciprian-Gabriel ALEXE
17/04/1975 Roznov, Neamț County
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 8. | 29946/15
09/06/2015 |
Cristina DONOSA
04/05/1969 Torino, Italy
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 9. | 29949/15
09/06/2015 |
Rodica ALEXE
26/03/1973 Rosta, Italy
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 10. | 30368/15
15/06/2015 |
Cătălin-Alexandru GIURCANU
29/08/1973 Bucharest
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on the night of 23/24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 11. | 30371/15
15/06/2015
30376/15 15/06/2015 |
Paraschiva GHIMBOAȘĂ
03/06/1953 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County
Filip GHIMBOAȘĂ 21/08/1946 Eftimie Murgu, Caraș-Severin County
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Parentsof a victim shot in Bucharest on the night of 23/24 December 1989 and deceased on 25 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 12. | 30383/15
15/06/2015
30386/15 15/06/2015
30390/15 15/06/2015 |
Daniela-Nicoleta ARGHIROV
27/07/1979 Bucharest
Ana-Valentina ION 03/10/1988 Bucharest
Georgeta ION 04/02/1958 Bucharest
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Daughters and widow of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 13. | 30393/15
15/06/2015
30395/15 15/06/2015 |
Doina-Liliana FRANGA
14/03/1938 Bucharest
Victor FRANGA 02/10/1940 Bucharest
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Parents of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 22 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 14. | 30397/15
15/06/2015 |
Lavinia-Simona FELDMANN
14/02/1976 Ruben, Germany
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Injured by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage
|
| 15. | 30435/15
15/06/2015 |
Mihaela-Silviana TULEA
20/10/1980 Bucharest
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 16. | 30488/15
15/06/2015 |
Floarea VINTILĂ
07/09/1941 Bucharest
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Mother of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on the night of 23/24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 17. | 30489/15
15/06/2015
30493/15 15/06/2015 |
Ioana BARBU
24/07/1948 Bucharest
Ion BARBU 22/04/1943 Bucharest
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Parents of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Parties in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 18. | 30496/15
15/06/2015 |
Maria PETRE
09/08/1949 Bucharest |
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Widow of a victim killed in a plane crash in Vișina, Dâmbovița on 28 December 1989, linked to the military operations of December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990).
|
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 19. | 30501/15
15/06/2015 |
Adriana-Alina ȘOROȘTINEAN
16/08/1981 Ciofliceni, Ilfov County
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 20. | 30509/15
15/06/2015 |
Florica BALDOVIN
25/05/1929 Bucharest
|
Ionuț MATEI
Bucharest |
Mother of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 21 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 21. | 39435/15
31/07/2015 |
Gavril SĂLĂJAN
05/08/1956 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 22. | 39443/15
31/07/2015 |
Dan-Ilie STOICA
19/07/1970 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by grenade explosion in Brașov on 24 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 23. | 39446/15
31/07/2015 |
Vasile ISTUDOR
17/01/1948 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 24. | 39449/15
31/07/2015 |
Viorel CATANA
28/02/1957 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 25. | 39670/15
31/07/2015 |
Răzvan Mircea DOBRIN
17/04/1989 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on the night of 22/23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 26. | 39672/15
31/07/2015 |
Bela BEREȘ
27/09/1948 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 27. | 39674/15
31/07/2015 |
Lorena-Ioana DOBRIN
07/12/1984 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Brașov on the night of 22/23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non‑pecuniary damage |
| 28. | 39676/15
31/07/2015 |
Sorin GEORGESCU
03/09/1964 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 29. | 39678/15
31/07/2015 |
Vasile CIOBAN
18/01/1957 Vama Buzăului, Brașov County
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 30. | 39679/15
31/07/2015 |
Adrian-Valentin GÂSCĂ[3]
01/07/1955 Brașov |
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage
|
| 31. | 39682/15
31/07/2015 |
Emma SANDOR[4]
22/01/1955 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 32. | 10533/16
15/02/2016 |
Radu-Gabriel FOGOROS
04/06/1965 Brașov
|
Vasile TUDOR
Codlea |
Injured by gunfire in Brașov on 23 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage
|
| 33. | 55026/16
15/09/2016 |
Laris Mugurel NEAGU
04/01/1970 Florence, Italy
|
Nela MUNICH IONESCU
Florence, Italy |
Injured by gunfire in Bucharest on 21 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
| 34. | 56527/16
15/09/2016 |
Dan MAFTEI
25/10/1967 Bucharest
|
Nela MUNICH IONESCU
Florence, Italy |
Injured by gunfire nshot in Bucharest on 21 December 1989.
Party in domestic file no. 11/P2014 (former 97/P/1990). |
2 |
EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non-pecuniary damage |
[1]Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “01/07/2015”
[2]Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “22/01/2015”
[3]Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “01/07/2015”
[4]Rectified on 31July 2018. The text was “22/01/2015”
Leave a Reply