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. On 16 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 were injured 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 1990 the 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. These cases 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 Mirea and Others v. Romania (nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 6-15, 12 April 2016). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shown below.
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 19 May 2017), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.
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 relied on 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 been completed 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) had lodged 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-law in cases where applicants have availed themselves 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 that the 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 and the investigation 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 file in 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 proceedings in respect of the death of the applicants’ close relative had been registered with the prosecutor in the main criminal investigation file (see paragraph 6 above; 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 applications are not 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 opened into 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 Apostol and Others v. Romania, nos. 24093/14 and 16 others, § 34, 23 February 2016), the Court notes that the investigation in the present case was 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 (Mocanu and Others, cited above, §§ 314-326), the Court considers that the criminal investigation does 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 ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
37. Some of the applicants listed in Appendix A complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings concerning the events of December 1989 and under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy to enable 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 Articles 6 § 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 them the 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’ fees incurred before the Court in 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaint concerning Article 2 of the Convention admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and the merits of the complaints under Articles 6 § 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. Dismisses the 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 TamiettiVincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy RegistrarPresident
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
Parents of 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”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy