Background
The 20 applicants were people wounded by gunfire, or relatives of people killed by gunfire, during events in Romania in December 1989. The incidents occurred in several locations, including Bucharest, Sibiu, Brașov, Otopeni, Giurgiu, Constanța, Târgoviște and Buzău.
They complained that the criminal investigations aimed at identifying and punishing those responsible had been ineffective. They also raised complaints concerning the length of the proceedings under Article 6; one applicant additionally complained under Article 3 about the lasting effects of his gunshot injury.
The Court’s Holding
The Court joined the applications, rejected the Government’s objections that several applicants lacked victim status or had lodged their cases late, and declared the Article 2 complaints admissible. It held that relatives could retain victim status even if they had waived participation as civil parties or had not separately participated in the domestic proceedings.
Following its earlier case-law on the December 1989 investigations, the Court found that the investigations had not met Convention standards, particularly because they had not been conducted with reasonable expedition. It therefore found a violation of Article 2’s procedural limb. In light of that finding, it did not separately examine the Article 6 complaints or the Article 3 complaint. Each applicant was awarded €26,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €500 for costs and expenses, plus any applicable tax.
Key Takeaways
- Article 2 requires an effective and reasonably prompt investigation into deaths and serious injuries caused by gunfire.
- The continuing pendency of domestic proceedings defeated the Government’s four-month time-limit objection.
- A victim or next of kin may retain standing under Article 2 despite non-participation or a waiver of civil-party status in domestic criminal proceedings.
Why It Matters
The judgment adds to the Court’s established findings concerning Romania’s unresolved investigations into the violence of December 1989. It underscores that the passage of decades without a sufficiently expeditious investigation can itself establish a procedural violation of Article 2.
For practitioners, the decision also confirms the Court’s broad approach to victim status for relatives in cases concerning alleged investigative failures.