889\/15<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7 8-11, 5\u00a0June2018). Subsequent relevant developments of the criminal investigation are as follows.<\/p>\n8.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation inrem 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\u2019s office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the taking of evidence from 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.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0From March 2017 the military prosecutor examined military and civilian archives, including the vast archives of the Romanian Senate. They also viewed and transcribed more than 400 hours of audio\/video recordings. They proceeded with the re-examination of several witnesses.They questioned military personnel involved in the December 1989 military operations andfifty-one members of the political party which ruled at the time and of other authorities. They verified the documents indicating the military units\u2019 actions from that period.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0At the date of the latest information communicated by the parties to the Court (29 March 2018), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0The legal provisions relevant for the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the events of December 1989 are set out in Association\u00a0\u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 95-100) and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC] (nos. 10865\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0193\u201196, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\nI.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE CASES<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of the Court.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that the domestic authorities had not carried out within a reasonable time an effective investigation into the events of December 1989 which occurred in Bucharest,Slobozia, T\u00e2rgovi\u0219te and Re\u0219i\u021ba, during which they were injured from gunfire or their close relatives were killed. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone\u2019s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally …\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n14.\u00a0\u00a0The Government raised the preliminary objection of lack of victim status in relation to some of the applications listed in Appendix A, because the respective applicants had never been parties in the main criminal investigation since they had not expressed their intention to be included in it.<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants argued that they had victim status with regard to the absence of an effective criminal investigation in the present case.<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a \u201cvictim\u201d 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, \u00a7 180, ECHR 2006\u2011V). Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in cases where Article 2 of the Convention has been invoked in relation to the death or disappearance of close relatives in circumstances allegedly engaging the responsibility of the State, it has recognised the standing of the victim\u2019s next-of-kin to submit an application even if the next-of-kin was not involved in the domestic procedure (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 98-100, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case, the Court notes that there is no evidence indicating an acknowledgement of the violation claimed by the applicants \u2013 ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation, due to its length and the authorities\u2019 failure to involve them in the proceedings \u2013 or any redress afforded to them by the domestic authorities in this connection. Moreover, as the investigation had been opened by the authorities of their own motion (see paragraph 6 above), anapplicationby the applicants to join the main investigation should have had no effect on the applicants\u2019 standing (see Alecu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56838\/08 and 80 others, \u00a7\u00a031, 27\u00a0January 2015, and EcaterinaMireaand Others v. Romania, nos.\u00a043626\/13 and 69 others, \u00a7\u00a7 24-30, 12 April 2016).<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s preliminary objection.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that thiscomplaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that itis not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government described the steps recently taken 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 \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810\/07 and 18817\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 128-132, 24 May 2011) and Alecu and Others (cited above, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u00a0the\u00a0United\u00a0Kingdom, no. 30054\/96, \u00a7 96, 4 May 2001, and Anguelovav.\u00a0Bulgaria, no. 38361\/97, \u00a7 139, ECHR 2002\u2011IV). The State\u2019s 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 \u0160ilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463\/01, \u00a7 195, 9 April 2009; Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064\/90 and 8 others, \u00a7 191, ECHR 2009; and Association\u00a0\u201c21\u00a0December 1989\u201d and Others, cited above, \u00a7 134).<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the Court notes that after December 1989 a criminal investigation was opened by the authorities on their own motion with regard to the armed suppression of the anti-communist demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest, Slobozia, T\u00e2rgovi\u0219te and Re\u0219i\u021ba, with a view to establishing the circumstances of the death or injury of a large number of people.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0Bearing in mind its rationetemporis jurisdiction (see Association\u00a0\u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 117-18) and regardless of the fact that the investigation was carried out by military prosecutors (see Elena Apostoland Others v. Romania, nos. 24093\/14 and\u00a016 others, \u00a7 34, 23 February 2016), the Court notes that the investigation in the present case was opened more than twenty-eight years ago and it was still ongoing in March 2018 (see paragraph 10 above).<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already examined the domestic authorities\u2019 conduct of the investigation opened into the violent suppression of the demonstrations during the events of December 1989 and concluded that Article 2 of the Convention had been violated under its procedural limb (see Association\u00a0\u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 133-45;Alecu and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 39-42; and EcaterinaMirea and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 37-44). The Court in particular found the main investigation to be procedurally defective, particularly by reason of its excessive length and long periods of inactivity, as well as because of the lack of involvement of the victims or their relatives, respectively, in the proceedings and of the lack of information to the public about the progress of the inquiry. Identifying similar shortcomings in the present case, the Court cannot therefore depart from its previous approach on the matter.<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation into their cases.<\/p>\n
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings concerning the events of December 1989. Some of the applicants listed in Appendix A also complained, under Article 13 of the Convention,of the absence of an effective domestic remedy to enable their claims to be determined.<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the finding relating to Article 2 (see paragraph\u00a025 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and\/or 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Association \u201c21\u00a0December1989\u201d and Others, cited above, \u00a7 181).<\/p>\n
IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed the amounts set out in Appendix A in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
30.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated by evidence and excessive.<\/p>\n
31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers on the one hand that the applicants have failed to demonstrate the existence of a causal 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 them the amounts set out in Appendix B, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n32.\u00a0\u00a0Some of the applicantsalso claimed costs and expenses, as well as the respective lawyer\u2019s fees incurred before the Court in the amounts indicated in Appendix A.<\/p>\n
33.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n
34.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses and the lawyer\u2019s fees, owing to lack of any relevant documentation.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n35.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0Decidesto join the applications;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaint concerning Article 2 of the Convention admissible;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there is no need to examine the admissibility and the merits of the complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months,the amounts set out in Appendix B,plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 October 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
Andrea Tamietti\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX A<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nNo.<\/strong><\/td>\n| Application no. and<\/strong><\/p>\n date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nDate of birth<\/strong>
\nPlace of residence<\/strong><\/td>\nCommunicated complaints<\/strong><\/td>\nGovernment\u2019s preliminary objections<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount claimed by the applicants under Article 41 of the Convention<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 1.<\/td>\n | 74269\/16
\n28\/11\/2016<\/td>\n | Adriana Laura PICU<\/strong>
\n25\/07\/1972
\nT\u00e2rgovi\u0219te<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 150 as costs and expenses and EUR 3,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 1-5 and 8.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 2.<\/td>\n | 74276\/16
\n28\/11\/2016<\/td>\n | Maria DUMITRESCU<\/strong>
\n18\/06\/1952
\nT\u00e2rgovi\u0219te<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 150 as costs and expenses and EUR 3,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 1-5 and 8.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3.<\/td>\n | 74301\/16
\n28\/11\/2016<\/td>\n | Daniel-Ciprian DUMITRESCU<\/strong>
\n10\/10\/1978
\nT\u00e2rgovi\u0219te<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 150 as costs and expenses and EUR 3,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 1-5 and 8.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4.<\/td>\n | 76016\/16
\n05\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | Marioara Z\u0102RNESCU<\/strong>
\n19\/01\/1955
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 150 as costs and expenses and EUR 3,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 1-5 and 8.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5.<\/td>\n | 76018\/16
\n05\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | Florin Z\u0102RNESCU<\/strong>
\n02\/11\/1972
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 150 as costs and expenses and EUR 3,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 1-5 and 8.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6.<\/td>\n | 23375\/17
\n20\/03\/2017<\/td>\n | Constantin FILIP<\/strong>
\n29\/01\/1976
\nM\u0103gurele, Ilfov County<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 50,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7.<\/td>\n | 23704\/17
\n20\/03\/2017<\/td>\n | Stelu\u021ba TAR\u021aA<\/strong>
\n03\/09\/1968
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 50,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 8.<\/td>\n | 24299\/17
\n21\/03\/2017<\/td>\n | Nicolae Z\u0102RNESCU<\/strong>
\n05\/08\/1979
\nTorrejon de Ardoz, Spain<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 150 as costs and expenses and EUR 3,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 1-5 and 8.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 9.<\/td>\n | 32410\/17
\n14\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Drago\u015f ZAMFIRESCU<\/strong>
\n25\/09\/1970
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 370,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 10.<\/td>\n | 33879\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Valentina STAN<\/strong>
\n15\/08\/1976
\nSlobozia<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 11.<\/td>\n | 33895\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | \u0218tefan-Valentin R\u0102U\u021aI<\/strong>
\n05\/05\/1988
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 12.<\/td>\n | 33899\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Gherlinde R\u0102U\u021aI<\/strong>
\n16\/03\/1967
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 13.<\/td>\n | 33902\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ioana MIRCEA<\/strong>
\n18\/06\/1944
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 14.<\/td>\n | 33907\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ana BR\u00c2NZEI<\/strong>
\n13\/08\/1956
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 15.<\/td>\n | 33909\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Vintil\u0103 IONESCU<\/strong>
\n30\/03\/1939
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 16.<\/td>\n | 33916\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Gheorghe-Mihail POSTOLACHE<\/strong>
\n17\/07\/1949
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 17.<\/td>\n | 33961\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Nicolae CIUCIUN\u0102<\/strong>
\n01\/06\/1952
\nZorlen\u021bu Mare, Cara\u0219-Severin County<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 18.<\/td>\n | 33962\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Gina PITICU<\/strong>
\n14\/10\/1979
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 19.<\/td>\n | 33965\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Safta STAN<\/strong>
\n18\/02\/1960
\nSlobozia<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 20.<\/td>\n | 33966\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ramona-Loredana MITU<\/strong>
\n06\/05\/1979
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 21.<\/td>\n | 33968\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ana B\u0102DOI<\/strong>
\n06\/09\/1963
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | None<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 22.<\/td>\n | 33970\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Olivia B\u0102DOI<\/strong>
\n07\/07\/1985
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 23.<\/td>\n | 33971\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Antonia-Georgiana ONOFREI<\/strong>
\n20\/03\/2001
\nBucharest<\/td>\nArt. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n | Lack of victim status<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 as pecuniary damage;
\nEUR 15,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX B<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nNo.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no. and<\/strong>
\ndate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nDate of birth<\/strong>
\nPlace of residence<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s representative<\/strong><\/td>\nParticular circumstances of the application<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount to be paid by the respondent State under Article 41 of the Convention<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 1.<\/td>\n | 74269\/16
\n28\/11\/2016<\/td>\n | Adriana Laura PICU<\/strong>
\n25\/07\/1972
\nT\u00e2rgovi\u0219te<\/td>\nVasile TUDOR
\nCodlea<\/td>\n | Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in T\u00e2rgovi\u0219te.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 2.<\/td>\n | 74276\/16
\n28\/11\/2016<\/td>\n | Maria DUMITRESCU<\/strong>
\n18\/06\/1952
\nT\u00e2rgovi\u0219te<\/td>\nVasile TUDOR
\nCodlea<\/td>\n | Widow of a victim killed by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in T\u00e2rgovi\u0219te.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3.<\/td>\n | 74301\/16
\n28\/11\/2016<\/td>\n | Daniel-Ciprian DUMITRESCU<\/strong>
\n10\/10\/1978
\nT\u00e2rgovi\u0219te<\/td>\nVasile TUDOR
\nCodlea<\/td>\n | Son of a victim killed by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in T\u00e2rgovi\u0219te.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4.<\/td>\n | 76016\/16
\n05\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | Marioara Z\u0102RNESCU<\/strong>
\n19\/01\/1955
\nBucharest<\/td>\nVasile TUDOR
\nCodlea<\/td>\n | Widow of a victim injured by gunfire on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly with application no.76018\/16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5.<\/td>\n | 76018\/16
\n05\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | Florin Z\u0102RNESCU<\/strong>
\n02\/11\/1972
\nBucharest<\/td>\nVasile TUDOR
\nCodlea<\/td>\n | Son of a victim injured by gunfire on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly with application no. 76016\/16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6.<\/td>\n | 23375\/17
\n20\/03\/2017<\/td>\n | Constantin FILIP<\/strong>
\n29\/01\/1976
\nM\u0103gurele,
\nIlfov County<\/td>\nCostel TOROIMAN
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Son of a victim killed by gunfire on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7.<\/td>\n | 23704\/17
\n20\/03\/2017<\/td>\n | Stelu\u021ba TAR\u021aA<\/strong>
\n03\/09\/1968
\nBucharest<\/td>\nCostel TOROIMAN
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 8.<\/td>\n | 24299\/17
\n21\/03\/2017<\/td>\n | Nicolae Z\u0102RNESCU<\/strong>
\n05\/08\/1979
\nTorrejon de Ardoz, Spain<\/td>\nVasile TUDOR
\nCodlea<\/td>\n | Son of a victim injured by gunfire on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 9.<\/td>\n | 32410\/17
\n14\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Drago\u015f ZAMFIRESCU<\/strong>
\n25\/09\/1970
\nBucharest<\/td>\n\u0218tefan Octavian POPESCU
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Brother of a victim killed by gunfire on 21 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 10.<\/td>\n | 33879\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Valentina STAN<\/strong>
\n15\/08\/1976
\nSlobozia<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire on 23\/24 December 1989 in Slobozia.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 11.<\/td>\n | 33895\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | \u0218tefan-Valentin R\u0102U\u021aI<\/strong>
\n05\/05\/1988
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Son of a victim killed by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in Re\u0219i\u021ba.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly with application no. 33899\/17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 12.<\/td>\n | 33899\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Gherlinde R\u0102U\u021aI<\/strong>
\n16\/03\/1967
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Widow of a victim killed by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in Re\u0219i\u021ba.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly with application no. 33895\/17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 13.<\/td>\n | 33902\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ioana MIRCEA<\/strong>
\n18\/06\/1944
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Widow of a victim killed by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in Re\u0219i\u021ba.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 14.<\/td>\n | 33907\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ana BR\u00c2NZEI<\/strong>
\n13\/08\/1956
\nRe\u0219i\u021ba<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Injured by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in Re\u0219i\u021ba.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 15.<\/td>\n | 33909\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Vintil\u0103 IONESCU<\/strong>
\n30\/03\/1939
\nBucharest<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Father of a victim killed by gunfire and compression by a military vehicle on 21 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 16.<\/td>\n | 33916\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Gheorghe-Mihail POSTOLACHE<\/strong>
\n17\/07\/1949
\nBucharest<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Son of a victim killed by gunfire on 23 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 17.<\/td>\n | 33961\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Nicolae CIUCIUN\u0102<\/strong>
\n01\/06\/1952
\nZorlen\u021bu Mare, Cara\u0219-Severin County<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Injured by gunfire on 24 December 1989 in Re\u0219i\u021ba.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 18.<\/td>\n | 33962\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Gina PITICU<\/strong>
\n14\/10\/1979
\nBucharest<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Daughter of victim killed by gunfire on 23\/24 December 1989 in Slobozia.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 19.<\/td>\n | 33965\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Safta STAN<\/strong>
\n18\/02\/1960
\nSlobozia<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Widow of victim killed by gunfire on 23\/24 December 1989 in Slobozia.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 20.<\/td>\n | 33966\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ramona-Loredana MITU<\/strong>
\n06\/05\/1979
\nBucharest<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Daughter of victim killed by gunfire on 21 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 21.<\/td>\n | 33968\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Ana B\u0102DOI<\/strong>
\n06\/09\/1963
\nBucharest<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Widow of victim killed by compression by a military vehicle on 21 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly with application no. 33970\/17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 22.<\/td>\n | 33970\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Olivia B\u0102DOI<\/strong>
\n07\/07\/1985
\nBucharest<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Daughter of victim killed by compression by a military vehicle on 21 December 1989 in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly with application no. 33968\/17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 23.<\/td>\n | 33971\/17
\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n | Antonia-Georgiana ONOFREI<\/strong>
\n20\/03\/2001
\nBucharest<\/td>\nIonu\u021b MATEI
\nBucharest<\/td>\n | Daughter of victim injured by gunfire on 25 December 1989, who died on 17 September 2005, in Bucharest.<\/td>\n | EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |