Communicated on 14 September 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 10533/16
Radu-Gabriel FOGOROS
against Romania
lodged on 15 February 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Radu-Gabriel Fogoros, is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Brașov. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Tudor, a lawyer practising in Codlea.
Background to the case and criminal proceedings
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are similar to those presented in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011) and Alecu and Others v. Romania (no. 56838/08 and 80 other cases, §§ 5-14, 27 January 2015). They fit into the same historical context and relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings. In respect of the applicant, the facts can be summarised as follows.
On 22 December 1989 the applicant was injured by gunshots in Brașov, during the events that led to the overthrow of the communist regime.
The criminal investigation into the events which occurred in the night of 22-23 December 1989 in Brașov was the subject of case no. 158/P/1990 before the Braşov military prosecutor’s office. By a decision of 28 December 1994 the proceedings in the case were discontinued.
By a decision of 30 August 1999 the military prosecuting authorities set aside the decision of 28 December 1994, on the grounds that the investigation was incomplete and “there was no evidence to justify exonerating from criminal liability the people who had been under an obligation to direct and coordinate the servicemen’s actions ... in such a way as to maintain control of the situation and avoid loss of life or injuries to innocent people”.
On an unspecified date in 1990, under file no. 97/P/1990, the prosecutor’s office opened a separate criminal investigation into the use of violence in Bucharest and other Romanian cities during the last days of December 1989.
By a decision of 9 January 2006 the military prosecuting authorities ordered that the file concerning the investigation into the fatal repression in Braşov be joined to case no. 97/P/1990.
During the military prosecutor’s investigations, several decisions were adopted in which decisions were reversed, charges were severed, and jurisdiction was relinquished to other domestic authorities. On 6 September 2000 and 28 June 2006 the applicant made statements and joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party.
Following the entry into force of the New Code of Criminal Procedure in February 2014, jurisdiction over the case was relinquished to the military prosecutor’s office, and the case was re-registered under no. 11/P/2014.
On 14 October 2015 the prosecutor’s office closed the 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 facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences, and some were res judicata.
This decision appears to have been quashed, the investigation being still pending before the domestic authorities.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities in order to punish those responsible for his gunshot injury, sustained during the events of December 1989 in Brașov.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 133-35, 24 May 2011), was the investigation in the present case in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy