4.  The applicants were born in 1997 and 1999 respectively and live in Bucharest. 5.  On 20 July 2010 X, the applicants’ sister, nine-year-old at the time, was grievously injured in a car accident. She was immediately admitted to hospital where, after four days of intense suffering, she died. 6.  A criminal investigation for involuntary manslaughter was initiated against the driver of the car. It was established that while driving at about ninety‑two kilometres per hour (when the speed limit was fifty kilometres per hour) she lost control of her car and mounted the pavement where the applicants’ sister was situated. 7.  On 26 September 2010, during the pre-trial investigation stage, the applicants, their mother and their older brothers brought a claim for damages in the criminal proceedings. 8.  On 24 October 2011 the Bucharest District Court severed the civil claims from the criminal proceedings. 9.  On 6 December 2011 the Bucharest District court awarded each civil party (including the applicants) 100,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. It ordered the driver’s insurance company to pay the damages. 10.  The court held that between the civil parties and the nine‑year‑old girl there had been a strong emotional relationship and the girl’s violent death had caused intense pain to her family.
The wording of the court judgment read as follows:
“...the brothers of the deceased suffered non-pecuniary damage, consisting of the pain caused by the loss of their nine-year-old sister in violent circumstances and by their sister’s suffering in the hospital until her death; from the evidence adduced before the court (the statements of the civil parties were corroborated by the statements of three witnesses) it can be determined that between the civil parties and the nine-year-old girl there was a strong emotional relationship. Therefore, having regard to the negative consequences, the importance of the infringed moral values, the way in which they were perceived by the civil parties, and the impact of their loss on the stability of their family, the court will grant to each civil party the equivalent of 100,000 euros”. 11.  All the parties appealed against the judgment. 12.  No new pieces of evidence were adduced before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 13.  On 9 April 2012 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the insurance company. It ordered the driver of the car to pay the damages, holding that the insurance company’s liability was only contractual and therefore subsidiary. The court further dismissed the applicants’ claim for non-pecuniary damages on the ground that at the time of their sister’s accident they had been younger than fourteen and had therefore been unaware of the negative consequences of her death. In relation to the claims lodged by their older siblings, the court decreased the awards to EUR 25,000 each.
The wording of the court judgment read as follows:
“The court will dismiss the civil claims lodged by Cosmin Mihai Deaconu and Alexandru Bogdan Deaconu on grounds other than those invoked by the insurance company.
In the present case, the applicants’ situation should be assessed in a different way, having regard to the fact that at the time of their minor sister’s accident they were younger than fourteen and therefore they were not aware of the negative consequences of her death. This aspect was apparent to persons who had a close relationship with the deceased’s family; thus, witness N.G.G. contended in her statement before the court that the younger brothers were less aware than their older brothers, who suffered...” 14.  The court also decreased the award for their mother in respect of non‑pecuniary damage to EUR 50,000.