Communicated on 11 January 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 55026/16 and 56527/16
Laris Mugurel NEAGU against Romania
and Dan MAFTEI against Romania
lodged on 15 September 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Mr Laris Mugurel Neagu and Mr Dan Maftei, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1970 and 1967 and live in Florence, Italy and Bucharest respectively. They are represented before the Court by Ms N. Munich Ionescu, a lawyer practising in Florence, Italy.
The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, 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 applicants, the facts can be summarised as follows.
On 21 December 1989 the applicants were injured by gunshots in Bucharest during the events that led to the overthrow of the communist regime.
In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office in Bucharest opened investigations into the use of force and unlawful deprivation of liberty in December 1989.
The main criminal investigation into the use of violence, especially against civilian demonstrators, both prior to and following the overthrow of communism, is currently the subject matter of file no. 11/P/2014 (formerly 97/P/1990).
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 judicatae.
By a Prosecutor General’s decision of April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016, the decision of 14 October 2015 was annulled. The investigation is still pending before the domestic authorities.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention of the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities in order to punish those responsible for their gunshot injuries, sustained during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest.
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 cases compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy