FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MOROŞANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 84271/17 and 4 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 March 2021
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Moroşanu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
 Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
 Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the five applications (listed in the appended table) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Romanian nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decision to give notice to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the lack of an effective investigation within a reasonable time into the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Reșița and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 16 February 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The present cases concern the criminal investigations opened by the military prosecutor’s office into the events of the Romanian Revolution in December 1989, in the course of which the applicants were injured or their close relatives died. Relying mainly on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the domestic authorities had not carried out an effective investigation within a reasonable time into these events. THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. 3. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms O.F. Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4. 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. 5. The applicants or their close relatives were injured or killed by gunshot while participating in demonstrations in Bucharest and Reșița during the events of December 1989 which led to the fall of the communist regime. The applicant in application no. 84271/17 (Mr Moroșanu) suffered injuries that necessitated medical care lasting one year and three months and which left him with a permanent infirmity. The applicant in application no. 2666/18 (Mr Iordan) suffered injuries that necessitated between twenty-three and twenty-five days of medical care. The other applicants’ relatives were killed by gunshot during the same events. 6. In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice opened, of its own motion, investigations into the illegal detention of and ill-treatment and injury suffered by the applicants and other participants in the events of December 1989. The main criminal investigation was recorded under file no. 97/P/1990 (currently no. 11/P/2014). 7. Between 1991 and 2006, the prosecutor decided, in the other sets of proceedings concerning the applicants or their relatives, either not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. Their cases were, however, examined in the main criminal investigation, and the applicants brought civil claims. 8. The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee], no. 889/15, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018). 9. On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main criminal investigation, finding that some of the complaints were statute‑barred, some were subject to an amnesty, and some were ill-founded. It also found that some of the occurrences could not be classified as offences and some were res judicatae (see Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania [Committee], no. 43629/13, § 11, 7 November 2017). 10. The decision of 14 October 2015 (see paragraph 9 above) was subsequently annulled by a decision of 5 April 2016 of the Prosecutor General, which was confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the opening of a criminal investigation in rem for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same factual circumstances. 11. On 5 April 2019 the military prosecutor’s office sent to trial the cases of several individuals (namely, a former Romanian president, a former Romanian prime minister and a former commander of the Romanian air force) for crimes against humanity, and discontinued the investigation with regard to other individuals for various reasons preventing the continuation of criminal proceedings (namely, some of the charges were res judicatae, some of the suspects had died or some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences). The proceedings are currently pending before the Preliminary Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
12. 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. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
13. The Court notes that the present cases concern the same factual circumstances and raise similar legal issues. Consequently, it considers it appropriate to order their joinder, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicants complained that the domestic authorities had not carried out an effective investigation within a reasonable time into the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Reșița, during which they had been injured or their close relatives had been killed by gunfire. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention. 15. The Government alleged that while it was true that the applicant in application no. 2666/18 (Mr Iordan) had been injured by gunshot, his injuries had not been life threatening, moreover, they concluded from the relatively few days of medical care he had required that his complaints should be analysed under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), considering the massive use of firearms in a crackdown on civilian demonstrators, will examine the complaints from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Şandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 51-54, 8 December 2009). The relevant part of that provision reads as follows:
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally ...”
Admissibility
16. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 2
Outcome: violation