FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SIDEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
\n(Applications nos. 889\/15 and 38 other applications – see appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n5 June 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Sidea and Others v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Having deliberated in private on 15 May 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by Romanian nationals. The applicants\u2019 personal details, the dates of their applications and names of their representatives are set out in the appended tables.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On16 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 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810\/07 and 18817\/08, \u00a7 12-41, 24 May 2011).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and wereinjured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Bra\u0219ov and Vi\u0219ina which led to the fall of the communist regime.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0In 1990the military prosecutor\u2019s offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, including the applicants\u2019injury or their close relatives\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The most important procedural steps were described in Association\u00a0\u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 12-41), and also in Ecaterina Mireaand Others v. Romania(nos. 43626\/13 and 69\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a06-15, 12 April 2016). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shownbelow.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor\u2019s 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 Or\u0103\u0219anu and Others v. Romania[Committee], no.\u00a043629\/13, \u00a7\u00a011, 7 November 2017).<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0The decision of 14 October 2015 was annulled by a Prosecutor General\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in\u00a0rem 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 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.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0At 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.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The legal provisions relevant for the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the events of December 1989 are mentioned in Association \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 95-100);Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC] (nos. 10865\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0193\u2011196, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); and Anamaria-Loredana Or\u0103\u0219anu and Others ([Committee] cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 12-14, with further references).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE JOINDER OF THE CASES<\/p>\n 13.\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 14.\u00a0\u00a0The 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, Bra\u0219ov and Vi\u0219ina, 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:<\/p>\n Article 2<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone\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>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The Government raised preliminary objections in relation to some of the applications (see Appendix A).<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Government\u2019s objection of incompatibility ratione temporis<\/em><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Government alleged that in applications nos. 39679\/15 (G\u00e2sc\u0103\u00a0v. 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.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted that the whole period should be examined, as the main criminal investigation in which they were parties was still ongoing.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already defined its jurisdiction ratione temporis in similar cases (see Association \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others v.\u00a0Romania, nos. 33810\/07 and 18817\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 114-118, 24 May 2011, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania[GC], nos. 10865\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0207\u2500211, 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\u2019s entry into force in respect of Romania.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In 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.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Government\u2019s objection of non-compliance with the six\u2011month time\u2011limit rule<\/em><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicants in applications nos.\u00a039446\/15 (Istudor v. Romania), 39672\/15 (Bere\u015f v. Romania), 39679\/15 (G\u00e2sc\u0103 v. Romania) and 39682\/15 (Sandor v. Romania) hadlodged their applications outside the six\u2011month time\u2011limit calculated from the date of the prosecutor\u2019s decisions closing their cases.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants contested this argument.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The Court relies on the principles adopted in respect of the six\u2011month time\u2011limit rule,as stated in its case-lawin cases where applicantshave availedthemselves of an apparently existing remedy for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 260 and 280).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the Court notes thatthe applicants\u2019 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\u2019s office concerned the same circumstances of fact.Moreover, the latter decision was quashed andtheinvestigation was on 19 May 2017 still ongoing (see paragraphs 6\u201311 above).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s objection.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Government\u2019s objection of lack of victim status<\/em><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicants in applications nos.\u00a030393\/15 (Doina-Liliana Franga v. Romania)and 30395\/15 (Victor\u00a0Franga v. Romania) lacked victim status, since their case had been finalised by a prosecutor\u2019s decision closing their case and their complaint was not examined further in the main criminal investigation.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants argued that they had victim status in the ongoing criminal investigation.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicants is not in principle sufficient to deprive them of their status as \u201cvictims\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\u00a02006\u2011V).<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the applicants have been offered neither an acknowledgment of a rights violation nor any redress. The prosecutor\u2019s failure to adopt a decision in the main criminal investigation filein respect of the circumstances of the applicants\u2019 case could have no impact on the applicants\u2019 standing, as the investigation had been initiated by the prosecutor\u2019s office of its own motion and requests for a civil claim and pursuance of the proceedingsin respect of the death of the applicants\u2019 close relative had been registered with the prosecutorin the main criminal investigation file (see paragraph 6above; see also, mutatis mutandis,Dobre\u00a0and Others v.\u00a0Romania, no. 34160\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 55-57, 17 March 2015).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, the Government\u2019s objection is rejected.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Other reasons for inadmissibility<\/em><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicationsarenot manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others (cited above) and Alecu\u00a0and\u00a0Others v. Romania, nos. 56838\/08 and 80 others, 27\u00a0January\u00a02015).<\/p>\n 32.\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 Anguelova\u00a0v.\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; Association \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others, cited above, \u00a7 134; and Mocanu and Others, cited above, \u00a7 317).<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the Court notes that shortly after the events of December 1989 a criminal investigation was openedinto the applicants\u2019 injury and\/or the death of their close relatives from gunfire in these circumstances.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Bearing 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, \u00a7 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\u2011four years after the Convention\u2019s ratification.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the principles deriving from Article 2 regarding an effective investigation (Mocanuand Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 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\u00a0\u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others(cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 133-145) and Alecu and Others(cited above, \u00a7 39), the Court cannot therefore depart from its previous approach on the matter.<\/p>\n 36.\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 ARTICLES6 \u00a7 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Some of the applicantslisted in Appendix A complained under Article 6 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the finding relating to Article 2 (see paragraph\u00a036 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles6 \u00a7 1 and\/or 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities,Association \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others, cited above, \u00a7 181).<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 39.\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>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed the amounts mentioned in Appendix A in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated by evidence and excessive.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also claimed costs and expenses, as well as the respective lawyers\u2019 feesincurred before the Courtin the amounts indicated in Appendix A.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award each of the applicants in applications nos. 889\/15 (Sidea v. Romania) and 1199\/15 (Man\u00a0v.\u00a0Romania),the sum of EUR 500 covering the lawyer\u2019s 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\u2019s fee raised in the remaining applications.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 46.\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,<\/p>\n 1.\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 Articles6 \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 following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0the amounts set out in Appendix B, plus any tax that may be chargeable,in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 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\u00a0v.\u00a0Romania), in respect of costs and expenses;<\/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 5 June 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vincent A. De Gaetano <\/p>\n APPENDIX A<\/strong><\/p>\n date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n 22\/12\/2014<\/td>\n 14\/06\/1955<\/p>\n Deva<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 500,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n EUR 500 as lawyer\u2019s fee.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 22\/12\/2014<\/td>\n 07\/03\/1927<\/p>\n Ludu\u0219<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 500,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n EUR 500 as lawyer\u2019s fee.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 07\/04\/2015<\/td>\n 10\/01\/1972<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 4,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 07\/04\/2015<\/td>\n 01\/10\/1951<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 4,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 05\/05\/2015<\/td>\n 13\/06\/1971<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 4,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 09\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 19\/07\/1966<\/p>\n La Ciotat, France<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 4,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 11\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 17\/04\/1975<\/p>\n Roznov, Neam\u021b County<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 4,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 09\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 04\/05\/1969<\/p>\n Torino, Italy<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 4,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 09\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 26\/03\/1973<\/p>\n Rosta, Italy<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 4,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 3-9.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 29\/08\/1973<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 03\/06\/1953<\/p>\n Eftimie Murgu,<\/p>\n Cara\u0219-Severin County<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 21\/08\/1946<\/p>\n Eftimie Murgu,<\/p>\n Cara\u0219-Severin County<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 27\/07\/1979<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 03\/10\/1988<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 04\/02\/1958<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 14\/03\/1938<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 02\/10\/1940<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 14\/02\/1976<\/p>\n Ruben, Germany<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 20\/10\/1980<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 07\/09\/1941<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 24\/07\/1948<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 22\/04\/1943<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 09\/08\/1949<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 16\/08\/1981<\/p>\n Ciofliceni, Ilfov County<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 25\/05\/1929<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 05\/08\/1956<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 19\/07\/1970<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 17\/01\/1948<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 28\/02\/1957<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 17\/04\/1989<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 27\/09\/1948<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 07\/12\/1984<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 03\/09\/1964<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 18\/01\/1957<\/p>\n Vama Buz\u0103ului, Bra\u0219ov County<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 01\/07\/1955<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n Out of six months<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 31\/07\/2015<\/td>\n 22\/01\/1955<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n Out of six months<\/td>\n EUR 100 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 7,500 as lawyer\u2019s fee, jointly for applicants from positions nos. 26-36.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/02\/2016<\/td>\n 04\/06\/1965<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/td>\n EUR 50 as costs before the Court and<\/p>\n EUR 700 as lawyer\u2019s fee.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/09\/2016<\/td>\n 04\/01\/1970<\/p>\n Florence, Italy<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 50,000,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 15\/09\/2016<\/td>\n 25\/10\/1967<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n EUR 3,500,000 as non-pecuniary damage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX B<\/strong><\/p>\n date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n 22\/12\/2014<\/td>\n 14\/06\/1955<\/p>\n Deva<\/td>\n Deva<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n EUR 500 (five hundred euros) as costs and expenses<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 22\/12\/2014<\/td>\n 07\/03\/1927<\/p>\n Ludu\u0219<\/td>\n Deva<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n EUR 500 (five hundred euros) as costs and expenses<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 07\/04\/2015<\/td>\n 10\/01\/1972<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Codlea<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 07\/04\/2015<\/td>\n 01\/10\/1951<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Codlea<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 05\/05\/2015<\/td>\n 13\/06\/1971<\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Codlea<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 09\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 19\/07\/1966<\/p>\n La Ciotat, France<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Codlea<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 11\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 17\/04\/1975<\/p>\n Roznov, Neam\u021b County<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n Codlea<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 09\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 04\/05\/1969<\/p>\n Torino, Italy<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Codlea<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 09\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 26\/03\/1973<\/p>\n Rosta, Italy<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Codlea<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 29\/08\/1973<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Bucharest<\/td>\n Party in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 30376\/15<\/p>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 03\/06\/1953<\/p>\n Eftimie Murgu,<\/p>\n Cara\u0219-Severin County<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Filip GHIMBOA\u0218\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n 21\/08\/1946<\/p>\n Eftimie Murgu,<\/p>\n Cara\u0219-Severin County<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Bucharest<\/td>\n Parties in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 30386\/15<\/p>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 30390\/15<\/p>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 27\/07\/1979<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ana-Valentina ION<\/strong><\/p>\n 03\/10\/1988<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Georgeta ION<\/strong><\/p>\n 04\/02\/1958<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Bucharest<\/td>\n Parties in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 30395\/15<\/p>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 14\/03\/1938<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Victor FRANGA<\/strong><\/p>\n 02\/10\/1940<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Bucharest<\/td>\n Parties in domestic file no. 11\/P2014 (former 97\/P\/1990).<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 15\/06\/2015<\/td>\n
\nGeorges Ravarani,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no. and<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Communicated complaints<\/strong><\/td>\n Government\u2019s preliminary objections<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount claimed by the applicants under Article 41 of the Convention<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 889\/15<\/p>\n Lenu<\/strong>\u021ba SIDEA<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 1,650 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 1199\/15<\/p>\n Victoria MAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 1,650 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 18449\/15<\/p>\n Claudiu-<\/strong>\u0218tefan FR\u00c2NCU<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 18520\/15<\/p>\n Constan\u021ba FR\u00c2NCU<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 22724\/15<\/p>\n Daniel ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 28561\/15<\/p>\n Viorel ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 29928\/15<\/p>\n Ciprian-Gabriel ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 29946\/15<\/p>\n Cristina DONOSA<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 29949\/15<\/p>\n Rodica ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 25,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n 30368\/15<\/p>\n C\u0103t\u0103lin-Alexandru GIURCANU<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 11.<\/td>\n 30371\/15<\/p>\n Paraschiva GHIMBOA\u0218\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 12.<\/td>\n 30376\/15<\/p>\n Filip GHIMBOA\u0218\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 13.<\/td>\n 30383\/15<\/p>\n Daniela-Nicoleta ARGHIROV<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 14.<\/td>\n 30386\/15<\/p>\n Ana-Valentina ION<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 15.<\/td>\n 30390\/15<\/p>\n Georgeta ION<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 16.<\/td>\n 30393\/15<\/p>\n Doina-Liliana FRANGA<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n Lack of victim status<\/p>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 17.<\/td>\n 30395\/15<\/p>\n Victor FRANGA<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n Lack of victim status<\/p>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 18.<\/td>\n 30397\/15<\/p>\n Lavinia-Simona FELDMANN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 19.<\/td>\n 30435\/15<\/p>\n Mihaela-Silviana TULEA<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 20.<\/td>\n 30488\/15<\/p>\n Floarea VINTIL\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 21.<\/td>\n 30489\/15<\/p>\n Ioana BARBU<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 22.<\/td>\n 30493\/15<\/p>\n Ion BARBU<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 23.<\/td>\n 30496\/15<\/p>\n Maria PETRE<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 24.<\/td>\n 30501\/15<\/p>\n Adriana-Alina \u0218ORO\u0218TINEAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 25.<\/td>\n 30509\/15<\/p>\n Florica BALDOVIN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2, 6 \u00a7 1, 13<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 26.<\/td>\n 39435\/15<\/p>\n Gavril S\u0102L\u0102JAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 27.<\/td>\n 39443\/15<\/p>\n Dan-Ilie STOICA<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 28.<\/td>\n 39446\/15<\/p>\n Vasile ISTUDOR<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n Out of six months<\/p>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 29.<\/td>\n 39449\/15<\/p>\n Viorel CATANA<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 30.<\/td>\n 39670\/15<\/p>\n R\u0103zvan Mircea DOBRIN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 31.<\/td>\n 39672\/15<\/p>\n Bela BERE\u0218<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n Out of six months<\/p>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 32.<\/td>\n 39674\/15<\/p>\n Lorena-Ioana DOBRIN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 33.<\/td>\n 39676\/15<\/p>\n Sorin GEORGESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 34.<\/td>\n 39678\/15<\/p>\n Vasile CIOBAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 35.<\/td>\n 39679\/15<\/p>\n Adrian-Valentin G\u00c2SC\u0102[1]<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n Incompatibility ratione temporis<\/em><\/p>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 36.<\/td>\n 39682\/15<\/p>\n Emma SANDOR[2]<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n Incompatibility ratione temporis<\/em><\/p>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 37.<\/td>\n 10533\/16<\/p>\n Radu-Gabriel FOGOROS<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 20,000 as non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 38.<\/td>\n 55026\/16<\/p>\n Laris Mugurel NEAGU<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 50,000,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 39.<\/td>\n 56527\/16<\/p>\n Dan MAFTEI<\/strong><\/p>\n Art. 2<\/td>\n None<\/td>\n EUR 3,500,000 as pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no. and<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s representative<\/strong><\/td>\n Particular circumstances of the application<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicable Article<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount to be paid by the respondent State under Article 41 of the Convention<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 889\/15<\/p>\n Lenu<\/strong>\u021ba SIDEA<\/strong><\/p>\n Ovidiu Vasile FILIPESCU<\/p>\n Sister of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 1199\/15<\/p>\n Victoria MAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Ovidiu Vasile FILIPESCU<\/p>\n Mother of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 24 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 18449\/15<\/p>\n Claudiu-<\/strong>\u0218tefan FR\u00c2NCU<\/strong><\/p>\n Vasile TUDOR<\/p>\n Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Bra\u0219ov on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 18520\/15<\/p>\n Constan\u021ba FR\u00c2NCU<\/strong><\/p>\n Vasile TUDOR<\/p>\n Widow of a victim killed by gunfire in Bra\u0219ov on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 22724\/15<\/p>\n Daniel ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Vasile TUDOR<\/p>\n Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Bra\u0219ov on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 28561\/15<\/p>\n Viorel ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Vasile TUDOR<\/p>\n Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Bra\u0219ov on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/p>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 29928\/15<\/p>\n Ciprian-Gabriel ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Vasile TUDOR<\/p>\n Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Bra\u0219ov on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 29946\/15<\/p>\n Cristina DONOSA<\/strong><\/p>\n Vasile TUDOR<\/p>\n Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Bra\u0219ov on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 29949\/15<\/p>\n Rodica ALEXE<\/strong><\/p>\n Vasile TUDOR<\/p>\n Daughter of a victim killed by gunfire in Bra\u0219ov on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n 30368\/15<\/p>\n C\u0103t\u0103lin-Alexandru GIURCANU<\/strong><\/p>\n Ionu\u021b MATEI<\/p>\n Son of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on the night of 23\/24 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 11.<\/td>\n 30371\/15<\/p>\n Paraschiva GHIMBOA\u0218\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n Ionu\u021b MATEI<\/p>\n Parentsof a victim shot in Bucharest on the night of 23\/24 December 1989 and deceased on 25 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 12.<\/td>\n 30383\/15<\/p>\n Daniela-Nicoleta ARGHIROV<\/strong><\/p>\n Ionu\u021b MATEI<\/p>\n Daughters and widow of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 23 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 13.<\/td>\n 30393\/15<\/p>\n Doina-Liliana FRANGA<\/strong><\/p>\n Ionu\u021b MATEI<\/p>\n Parents of a victim killed by gunfire in Bucharest on 22 December 1989.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), jointly, as non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 14.<\/td>\n 30397\/15<\/p>\n Lavinia-Simona FELDMANN<\/strong><\/p>\n