FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF BUZATU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 9759/19 and 7 others)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

4 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Buzatu and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Anne Louise Bormann, President,
 Sebastian Răduleţu,
 András Jakab, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on 8 February 2019, and who were represented by Ms E. Arjoca, a lawyer practising in Bucharest;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents, most recently Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 11 February 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011) and Lupu and Others v. Romania ([Committee], nos. 3107/19 and 16 others, §§ 3-7, 17 January 2023).

2.  All the applicants were ill-treated in Bucharest on the night of 21/22 December 1989 during the events which led to the fall of the communist regime. The applicants in applications nos. 9759/19 (Buzatu v. Romania), 9778/19 (Ionişor v. Romania), 9928/19 (Trifanov v. Romania), 9941/19 (Stănculescu v. Romania) and 9949/19 (Moraru v. Romania) suffered injuries that needed medical care; the other three applicants were beaten by miliţia forces on the same occasion. All applicants, apart from the applicant in application no. 9949/19 (Moraru v. Romania), were also subsequently detained on the same night.

3.  In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice opened investigations, of its own motion, into the ill‑treatment and injury of the applicants and of other participants in the events of December 1989. The main criminal investigation was registered under file no. 97/P/1990 (currently no. 11/P/2014).

4.  In parallel, another investigation concerning the offences of illegal deprivation of liberty, illegal arrest, and abusive investigation against a large number of persons, including the applicants, culminated in the committal for trial of senior military and public officials and their subsequent conviction by a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 10 May 1991, which became final on 14 November 1991. The Supreme Court’s decision does not indicate whether the applicants participated in those proceedings (see, for illustrative purposes, Bănuțoiu and Ștefoglu v. Romania [Committee], nos. 64752/13 and 54607/14, § 7, 3 July 2018, and Giurcanu and Others v. Romania [Committee], nos. 30365/15 and 2 others, § 7, 16 October 2018).

5.  The applicants’ cases were all examined in the main criminal investigation (see paragraph 3 above), and the applicants either brought civil claims or participated in the proceedings as injured parties.

6.  The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12‑41) and Lupu and Others (cited above, §§ 3-6).

7.  On 5 April 2019 the military prosecutor’s office discontinued the investigation with respect to 627 injured persons, including the applicants. According to the latest information provided to the Court by the Government on 16 January 2020, the applicants’ complaints were dismissed, the proceedings regarding their claims being discontinued. In their submissions, the applicants claim that the indictment was returned to the military prosecutor’s office owing to irregularities and that their complaints continue to be investigated.

8.  The legal provisions relevant to the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the events of December 1989 are set out in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 95-100).

9.  Relying on article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the domestic authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the events of December 1989.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

10.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  The Government raised a preliminary objection of incompatibility ratione temporis in respect of all applications. They argued that the criminal investigation regarding the applicants was closed prior to 20 June 1994, the date of the ratification of the Convention by Romania. They refer to the investigation closed in 1991, culminating in the conviction of multiple persons by the Supreme Court of Justice (see paragraph 4 above).

12.  The applicants submitted that they did not participate in the said investigation, whereas they were parties to the main criminal investigation, which was still ongoing at the time of the introduction of the present applications before the Court on 8 February 2019 (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above). They also claimed still to be parties to continuing proceedings regarding the same events and stated that they had received no compensation in the present case (see paragraph 7 above).

13.  The Court has already defined its jurisdiction ratione temporis in similar cases (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, cited above, §§ 114-18, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 207‑11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), concluding that it was competent to examine complaints relating to the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations into the events of December 1989 when the majority of the proceedings in respect of a case and the most important procedural measures were carried out after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Romania.

14.  The Court also reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for a breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006‑V).

15.  In the present case, the Court notes that after 20 June 1994 the applicants actively participated in the main criminal investigation (see paragraph 5 above). It also notes that there is no evidence indicating an acknowledgement of the violation claimed by the applicants (namely the ineffectiveness of the main criminal investigation) or any redress being afforded to them by the domestic authorities in this respect.

16.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach, in the present case, a conclusion different from that illustrated in its case-law (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above). It therefore dismisses the preliminary objection.

17.  The Court further notes that, as the investigation had been opened by the authorities of their own motion (see paragraph 3 above), an application by the applicants to join the main investigation as civil parties or otherwise should have had no effect on the applicants’ standing (see Alecu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, § 31, 27 January 2015, and Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania, nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 24‑30, 12 April 2016).

18.  Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection that some of the applicants failed to join civil claims to the main investigation and that none of them are currently parties to the main criminal investigation.

19.  Accordingly, the applications are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

20.  The general principles concerning the effectiveness of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment or injury have been summarised in Labita v. Italy ([GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV) and Mocanu and Others v. Romania (cited above, §§ 320-26).

21.  The Court notes that it is common ground (see paragraph 2 above) that the applicants were ill-treated or injured during the events of December 1989 and that these claims were examined in the main criminal investigation. No proof has been provided that the applicants were parties to or otherwise involved in the investigation finalised on 14 November 1991 (see paragraph 4 above).

22.  Having regard to its jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider only that part of the investigation which occurred after 20 June 1994, the date on which the Convention came into force in respect of Romania (see Mocanu and Others (cited above, §§ 205‑11)), the Court further notes that the main criminal investigation to which the applicants were parties was opened in 1990 and continued after 20 June 1994 (see paragraph 3 above). The Court has already found that it was procedurally defective, not only by reason of its excessive length and long periods of inactivity, but also because of the lack of involvement of the victims in the proceedings and of the lack of information afforded to the public about the progress of the inquiry (Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above, §§ 133‑45; Mocanu and Others, cited above, §§ 335-48 and Alecu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, § 39, 27 January 2015).

23.  Regardless of whether the proceedings concerning the applicants were discontinued in April 2019 (according to the Government) or pursued in a parallel ongoing investigation (according to the applicants), the Court holds that the criminal investigation in the present case does not meet the required standards, in particular since it has not been conducted with the reasonable expedition required by the Convention. Moreover, the Court notes that the alleged discontinuation of the main investigation concerning the applicants took place in April 2019 and was subsequent to the introduction of the present applications.

24.  The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation into their cases.

25.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

26.  The applicants claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) (as set out in the appendix) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They made no claim for the reimbursement of costs and expenses.

27.  The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated.

28.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers that the violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb has caused the applicants substantial non-pecuniary damage, such as distress and frustration. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards each applicant EUR 12,500 (as indicated in the appendix), plus any tax that may be chargeable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
4. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Simeon Petrovski Anne Louise Bormann
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: