Here’s a breakdown of the Iancu and Ristea v. Romania decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Romania in violation of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to life) due to an ineffective investigation into the death of one applicant’s daughter and the injury of the other applicant during the December 1989 events that led to the fall of the communist regime. The Court determined that the investigation into these events was excessively long, lacked victim involvement, and lacked transparency, thus failing to meet the required standards of an effective investigation. The Court dismissed the Romanian Government’s preliminary objections, including arguments that Article 2 was not applicable to the injured applicant and that the applicants had lost their victim status. As a result, the Court awarded each applicant 20,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Summarizes the facts, referencing similar cases and detailing the events of December 1989, including the death of the first applicant’s daughter and the injury of the second applicant.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 2 of the Convention:** Addresses the government’s preliminary objections regarding the applicability of Article 2 and the applicants’ victim status, dismissing these objections.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the applications admissible, finding they are not manifestly ill-founded.
* **Merits:** Analyzes the effectiveness of the investigation, finding it procedurally defective due to excessive length, inactivity, lack of victim involvement, and lack of public information.
* **Conclusion:** Concludes that the applicants were deprived of an effective investigation, constituting a violation of Article 2.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damage and awards each applicant EUR 20,000.
* **Operative Provisions:** Formally declares the applications admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 2, and specifies the amount of damages to be paid to each applicant.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Applicability of Article 2 to Non-Fatal Injuries:** The Court clarifies that Article 2 can apply to cases of bodily harm inflicted by State agents that did not result in death, particularly when the actions put the victim’s life at grave risk.
* **Effectiveness of Investigation:** The decision reiterates the requirements for an effective investigation into violent deaths or injuries, including reasonable expedition, victim involvement, and transparency.
* **Victim Status:** The Court emphasizes that applicants do not lose their victim status unless national authorities acknowledge a breach of the Convention and provide redress.
* **Ratione Temporis:** The Court reaffirms its jurisdiction to examine complaints regarding the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations when the majority of proceedings and important procedural measures occurred after the Convention’s entry into force for the respondent State.
**** This decision highlights the importance of conducting thorough and timely investigations into cases involving loss of life or serious injury, particularly when State agents are involved. It also underscores the need for victim involvement and transparency in such investigations. This case may have implications for similar cases in Ukraine, especially those related to investigations into deaths or injuries resulting from conflict or actions by State agents.
