Communicated on 18 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 74269/16
Adriana Laura PICU against Romania
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Romanian nationals. The applicants’ personal details and the dates of their respective applications are set out in the appended table.
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 Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania (nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 10-15, 12 April 2016). In respect of the applicants, the facts can be summarised as follows.
Between 23 and 25 December 1989 the applicants’ close relatives were shot dead in Bucharest and Târgoviște during the events that led to the overthrow of the communist regime.
The main criminal investigation opened in 1990 into the use of force, both prior to and following the overthrow of communism, is currently the subject matter of file 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 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 ongoing before the domestic authorities.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities in order to punish those responsible for the death by gunshot of their close relatives during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Târgoviște.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Târgoviște.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. 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?
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Particular circumstances of the application
Complaints to be communicated
74269/16
28/11/2016
Adriana Laura PICU
25/07/1972
Târgoviște
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshot on 24 December 1989 in Târgoviște.
2 and 6 § 1
74276/16
28/11/2016
Maria DUMITRESCU
18/06/1952
Târgoviște
Widow of a victim killed by gunshot on 24 December 1989 in Târgoviște.
2 and 6 § 1
74301/16
28/11/2016
Daniel-Ciprian DUMITRESCU
10/10/1978
Târgoviște
Son of a victim killed by gunshot on 24 December 1989 in Târgoviște.
2 and 6 § 1
76016/16
05/12/2016
Marioara ZĂRNESCU
19/01/1955
Bucharest
Widow of a victim injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.
2 and 6 § 1
76018/16
05/12/2016
Florin ZĂRNESCU
02/11/1972
Bucharest
Son of a victim injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.
2 and 6§1
23375/17
20/03/2017
Constantin FILIP
29/01/1976
Măgurele, Ilfov County
Son of a victim killed by gunshot on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.
2 and 6 § 1
23704/17
20/03/2017
Steluța Tarța
03/09/1968
Bucharest
Daughter of a victim killed by gunshot on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.
2 and 6 § 1
24299/17
21/03/2017
Nicolae Zărnescu
05/08/1979
Torrejon de Ardoz, Spain
Son of a victim injured by gunshot on 23 December 1989 and dead on 25 December 1989 in Bucharest.
2 and 6 § 1
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy