DEAC AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

Published on 21 July 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 25509/22
Ioan DEAC and Others
against Romania
lodged on 13 May 2022
communicated on 1 July 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The four applicants are the sons, granddaughter and grandson of the late D.F. The application concerns the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of D.F., who died on 9 December 2016 after being mauled by animals (allegedly dogs) on 11 November 2016.

On 25 January 2019 three of D.F.’s neighbours (X, Y, and Z), to whom the dogs allegedly belonged, were indicted for manslaughter. The applicants joined the criminal proceeding with a civil claim for damages.

On 19 October 2020 the Carei District Court convicted X, Y, and Z of manslaughter and sentenced each to a suspended term of three years’ imprisonment.

On 12 November 2021 (decision served on 17 November 2021) the Oradea Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) acquitted the three defendants under Article 16 § 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the animals that had attacked D.F. belonged to them, and that there remained a possibility that D.F. had been attacked by wild animals, possibly hyenas. The Court of Appeal noted that the criminal investigation had been incomplete, as the domestic authorities had failed to take investigative steps to determine the ownership of the dogs allegedly seen near the victim by promptly examining the suspected animals for traces of blood and conducting forensic tests on the victim’s injuries. The Court of Appeal further noted that D.F. had never been interviewed by the domestic authorities, despite having been hospitalised for 29 days prior to her death, and that there was no evidence to suggest she had been in a coma or unconscious during that time. It concluded that those shortcomings left key questions unanswered, including whether the dogs purportedly seen by the witnesses were those responsible for the attack and whether they belonged to the defendants.

Under Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants allege that the investigation into D.F.’s death was ineffective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see among others and mutatis mutandis Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 157-71, 25 June 2019), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

In particular,

(a)  did the investigation by the domestic authorities satisfy the requirement of promptness under Article 2 of the Convention?

(b)  did the deficiencies in the investigation, as identified by the Court of Appeal, undermine any prospect of establishing the circumstances of D.F.’s death and identifying those responsible for it (see among others and mutatis mutandis Ciechońska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, § 75, 14 June 2011 and, for illustrative purposes, Mehrabyan v. Armenia [Committee], no. 247/11, § 88, 19 March 2020)?

The parties are invited to provide the Court with a copy of the entire criminal file (criminal investigation, preliminary chamber, first instance and appeal courts).

APPENDIX

Application no. 25509/22 (lodged on 13 May 2022)