Communicated on 10 July 2015
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 54607/14
Ecaterina STEFOGLU
against Romania
lodged on 28 July 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ecaterina Stefoglu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bucharest. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Matei, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are linked to the same events and criminal proceedings as those described in the cases of the 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, 27 January 2015). They can be summarized as follows.
Following demonstrations against the Government, on 17 December 1989, military operations were conducted in Timișoara and in the following days in other towns, causing many civilian victims. More than 1,200 people died, more than 5,000 people were injured and several thousand people were unlawfully deprived of their liberty and subjected to ill treatment, in several towns in Romania. Thousands of servicemen, equipped with combat tanks and other armed vehicles, were deployed in Bucharest and other cities. During the period of 17 to 30 December 1989 they used considerable quantities of ammunition.
On 21 December 1989, the applicant – who was participating in the demonstrations in Bucharest (Piaţa Universităţii) – was arrested, together with dozens of other demonstrators and brought to the headquarters of the Police in Bucharest. She was tied with ropes and beaten by policemen with rubber truncheons for about an hour before the arrival of the ministry of Interior. She was subsequently brought to Jilava Prison. The following day, at noon, she was released without any explanation.
During 1990 the military prosecutor’s offices opened investigations into the use of force and unlawful deprivation of liberty in the closing days of December 1989.
On 8 February 1990, the applicant was heard by a military prosecutor from the military prosecutor’s office in Bucharest, as an injured party in a case related to the events that had taken place in Bucharest on 21 December 1989.
On 28 October 1994, prosecutor S. in the military prosecutors’ office in Bucharest issued a decision discontinuing proceedings in the applicant’s case. In his decision, the prosecutor acknowledged that the applicant had been beaten by police forces but stated that the proceedings should be brought to an end because of an amnesty law. This decision was notified to the applicant on 4 October 2001.
By the end of 2004, the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“HCCJ”, here after) set aside, as unlawful and unfounded, a large number of decisions to close the investigation, including the one in the main case no. 97/P/1990 and the one concerning the applicant. Several criminal investigations into the fatal crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989, which had initially been conducted separately, as the one concerning the applicant, were joined to the investigation that was the subject matter of case no. 97/P/1990.
By a decision of 7 December 2004, the military prosecutor’s office ordered the indictment of 102 persons, essentially high‑ranking officers from the Army, police and Securitate forces, for murder, inhuman treatment, attempting, aiding and abetting in the commission of these offences and participation lato sensu in them, acts committed “during the period from 21 to 30 December 1989”. Sixteen civilians, including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service, were also charged.
On 17 May 2005, the applicant was heard by a military prosecutor as an injured party in the case no. 97/P/1990. She then expressed her willingness to join the proceedings also as a civil party.
By a decision of 15 January 2008, the military prosecuting authorities at the HCCJ decided to separate the investigation concerning the sixteen civilian defendants from the investigation involving military personnel, and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office at the HCCJ.
By a decision of 18 April 2011, the military prosecuting authorities decided to relinquish their jurisdiction also concerning the military personnel in favor of the prosecuting authorities at the HCCJ.
The criminal investigation appears to be still pending before the domestic authorities (see Alecu and Others, cited above, §§ 13-14).
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the lack of an effective criminal investigation opened by the authorities in order to punish those responsible for her ill treatment during the crackdown on the anti-government demonstrations which started on 21 December 1989 in Bucharest, in which she had participated. She claims that her life was at risk because of the use of lethal force against demonstrators.
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in which she has joined as a civil party.
Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the determination of her claims.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the domestic proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for the determination of her complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy