Communicated on 17 April 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 41720/13
Nicolae Virgiliu TĂNASE against Romania
lodged on 21 June 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Ploieşti.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 December 2004 the applicant was involved in a car accident. He suffered serious injuries which endangered his life and left him with a physical disability. After the accident the applicant needed between two hundred and two hundred and fifty days of medical treatment.
On the same date the domestic authorities opened a criminal investigation against the applicant and two other third parties who had been involved in the car accident.
On 3 January 2006 the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation against the applicant and the two other third parties on the ground that not all the elements of an offence had been met. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts.
By a judgment of 13 October 2006 the Ploieşti District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. He argued that the first-instance court had not examined his arguments and the evidence submitted by him and had not provided reasons for its decision. In addition the investigating authorities have not administered sufficient evidence in respect of the case and have not clarified the circumstances of the accident. Moreover, no technical expert report had been produced in the case.
On 18 December 2006 the Prahova County Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and ordered the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office to reopen the criminal investigation initiated against the two third parties. It also ordered the prosecutor’s office to produce a technical and a medical expert report in order to clarify the exact circumstances of the accident.
On 23 March 2011 the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings opened against the two third parties on the ground that not all the elements of an offence had been met. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts.
On 30 September 2011 the Bucharest District Court allowed in part the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 March 2011 and ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation in respect of one of the third parties involved in the accident on the ground that some of the elements of an offence had been met in his case. However, given the absence of any evidence to the file that could have clarified the existence of the causal link between the third party’s action and the injuries suffered by the applicant it could not retain the case for examination. Consequently, it ordered the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office to produce a new medical expert report that could determine the existence of a potential direct connection between the third party’s actions and the applicant’s injuries. It noted that on account of the lengthy criminal investigation the special status of limitation was almost taking effect. However, it considered that it could not retain the case for examination because in the absence of the requested evidence the existence of all the elements of an offence could not be established clearly.
On 18 June 2012 the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation against the third party on the ground that according to the available evidence including the new medical expert report not all the elements of an offence had been met. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. He argued that the authorities investigating his case had examined the available evidence superficially and the prosecutor’s office had failed to take into consideration all his submissions.
By a final judgment of 21 December 2012 the Prahova District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the special status of limitation in respect of the third party’s offence had taken effect and the criminal investigation had to be discontinued.
COMPLAINT
Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment because the criminal investigation opened by the domestic authorities into his car accident lacked promptness and was ineffective. In particular, the domestic authorities failed to examine the merits of the case, to clarify the circumstances of the accident and allowed the special status of limitation in respect of the third party’s offence to take effect.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. What measures have the domestic authorities taken to discharge their obligation under the procedural head of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the criminal proceedings conducted by the domestic authorities satisfy the conditions of adequacy and promptness as required under the procedural head of Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy