B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law<\/strong><\/p>\n10.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (which were in force until 1 February 2014) regarding participants in criminal proceedings read as follows:<\/p>\n
Article 15<\/p>\n
\u201cAn injured person may join the proceedings as a civil party against the accused person or the defendant and against the party that bears civil liability.<\/p>\n
Joining the proceedings as a civil party may be undertaken either during the criminal investigation or in court, before the charges are read out …\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 24<\/p>\n
\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0A person who has suffered a physical injury or psychological or material damage as a result of a criminal act is referred to as the injured party, if he or she participates in the criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
\u201d2.\u00a0\u00a0An injured person who undertakes a civil action during the criminal proceedings is referred to as the civil party. …\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 78<\/p>\n
\u201cAny person who has knowledge of a fact or circumstance that might be useful in establishing the truth in the criminal proceedings may be heard as a witness.\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 82<\/p>\n
\u201cThe injured person may be heard as a witness, if he or she does not join the proceedings as a civil party or he or she does not participate in those proceedings as an injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n
The new Code of Criminal Procedure (now in force) contains similar provisions:<\/p>\n
Article 20<\/p>\n
\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Joining the proceedings as a civil party may be undertaken until the beginning of the court\u2019s examination [p\u00e2n\u0103 la \u00eenceperea cercet\u0103rii judec\u0103tore\u0219ti] …\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 29<\/p>\n
\u201cThe participants in criminal proceedings are the following: the judicial authorities, counsel, the parties, the main procedural subjects, as well as other procedural subjects.\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 32<\/p>\n
\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties are procedural subjects who undertake a judicial action or against whom a judicial action is undertaken.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The parties to criminal proceedings are the accused person, the civil party and the party that bears civil liability.\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 33<\/p>\n
\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0The main procedural subjects are the suspect and the injured person.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The main procedural subjects have the same rights and obligations as the parties, save for those granted by law exclusively to them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 34<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are other procedural subjects beside those provided by Article 33: witnesses, experts, the interpreter …\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 79<\/p>\n
\u201cA person who has suffered a physical injury or material or psychological damage is referred to as the injured person.\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 81<\/p>\n
\u201c2.\u00a0\u00a0A person who has suffered a physical injury or material or psychological damage as a result of a criminal act for which a criminal trial is automatically set in motion, and who does not wish to participate in the criminal proceedings, has to inform the judicial authorities of this fact; [they] shall hear that person as a witness, if they consider it necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 84<\/p>\n
\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0An injured person who undertakes a civil action during the criminal proceedings is a party to these proceedings and is referred to as the civil party.\u201d<\/p>\n
COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n11.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 3, Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the ineffectiveness and length of the criminal investigation carried out in respect of the events of December 1989 and about the absence of an effective domestic remedy.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\nA.\u00a0\u00a0Joinder of the cases<\/strong><\/p>\n12.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to order their joinder (Rule 42 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n13.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the lack of an effective investigation carried out under file no. 97\/P\/1990 (current no. 11\/P\/2014) capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for their ill\u2011treatment during the demonstrations of December 1989. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued, among other submissions, that the applicants lacked victim status in relation to the main criminal investigation carried out under file no. 97\/P\/1990 (current no. 11\/P\/2014), as they had not expressed any interest in the domestic criminal proceedings, not participating in them as an injured person or a civil party.<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that, in order to be able to lodge an application under Article 34, a person must be able to claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. In order to make that claim, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure: the Convention does not envisage the bringing of an actio popularis for the interpretation of the rights it contains (see T\u0103nase v.\u00a0Moldova [GC], no. 7\/08, \u00a7 104, ECHR 2010, andCentre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 101, ECHR 2014, with further references).<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the Court has regard to the fact that the applicants complained of the lack of an effective criminal investigation carried out under file no. 97\/P\/1990 (current no. 11\/P\/2014). The Court notes that the applicants\u2019 cases were not part of the main criminal investigation (see paragraph 8 above). The Court also notes that the applicants did not lodge a criminal complaint with the domestic authorities, nor did they raise any civil claims (see paragraph 7 above, and contrast Dobre and Others v. Romania, no.\u00a034160\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 19-20 and 54-57, 17 March 2015). In that connection, the Court takes the view that the applicants are not entitled to claim that there were shortcomings in criminal proceedings to which they were not parties. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim to be victims of a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1\u00a0(a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings was incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected that the applicants lacked victim status, as they had not joined the criminal investigation as an injured person or a civil party.<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants disagreed with the Government\u2019s objection.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the Convention does not confer any right to \u201cprivate revenge\u201d or to an actio popularis. Thus, the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence cannot be asserted independently; it must be indissociable from the victim\u2019s exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law (see Perez v. France [GC], no.\u00a047287\/99, \u00a7 70, ECHR 2004\u2011I). Therefore, in principle the victim of an offence may only invoke his or her rights under Article 6 in relation to criminal proceedings against an offender if he or she has joined those proceedings as a civil party in order to obtain damages or to otherwise protect his or her civil rights (contrast Bosnigeanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56861\/08 and 33 others, \u00a7 19, 4November 2014, andAlexandrescu\u00a0and Others v. Romania, nos. 56842\/08 and 7 others, \u00a7\u00a022, 24\u00a0November\u00a02015).<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0The Court furthermore notes that, while the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure allows civil parties to request compensation during criminal proceedings (see paragraph 10 above), the applicants were not part of the main criminal investigation, there being no information in the case file to suggest that the applicants lodged a request to participate in it or that they raised any civil claims or that their cases were examined in the main criminal investigation (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). Therefore, Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention is not applicable to the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Pop Blaga v. Romania(No.\u00a01) (dec.), no. 37379\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0152-155, 08 September 2009; Rosoga v. Romania (dec.), no.\u00a039681\/06, \u00a7\u00a022, 05\u00a0January 2010; and Ro\u0219ca St\u0103nescu v. Romania (dec.), no.\u00a049357\/08, \u00a7\u00a033, 28 January 2014).<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3\u00a0(a) and must therefore be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n
D.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n24.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the absence of a domestic remedy through which to enable their claims under Articles 3 and 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to be determined in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention, which states as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that Article 13 has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as \u201carguable\u201d in terms of the Convention (see Athanassoglou\u00a0and\u00a0Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644\/95, \u00a7 58, ECHR\u00a02000\u2011IV).<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the finding relating to Articles 3 and 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see paragraphs 17 and 23 above), this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and must therefore be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a04.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
Declares the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 November 2018.<\/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 Georges Ravarani
\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 President<\/p>\n