CASE OF CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Center for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania (no. 47848/08) (Grand Chamber Judgment hearing, 2013-09-04 00:00:00)
Application no.: 47848/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-07-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0717JUD004784808
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;13;13+2;34;46;46-2
Judges: Alvina Gyulumyan;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: COJOCARIU C.
Issue: Law no. 487/2002 on Mental Health and the Protection of People with Psychological Disorders (“the Mental Health Act 2002”)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 30015/96, §§ 44-45, 27 July 2004;Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 43, 2 November 2004;Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012;Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain, no. 42430/05, § 30, 2 February 2010;Aliev v. Georgia, no. 522/04, §§ 44-49, 13 January 2009;Armonienė v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008;Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37;B. v. Romania (no. 2), no. 1285/03, 19 February 2013;Bazorkina v. Russia (dec.), no. 69481/01, 15 September 2005;Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, §§ 22-23, 2 February 2006;Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005 II;Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 20, ECHR 2001 I;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008;C.B. v. Romania, no. 21207/03, §§ 65-67, 20 April 2010;Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 92, ECHR 1999 IV;Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002 I;Carabulea v. Romania, no. 45661/99, § 108, 13 July 2010;Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, ECHR 1999 VI;De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 76, Series A no. 12;Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, 17 January 2008;Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 41, 28 July 2009;Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24790/04, ECHR 2005 VI;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18;Grădinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, 8 April 2008;Ilbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, § 35, 10 April 2012;İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000 VII;Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25;Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, §59, 21 December 2010;Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, §§ 52-53, 19 June 2012;Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007;Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003 IX;Kaya and Polat v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 2794/05 and 40345/05, 21 October 2008;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28;Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 89, ECHR 2012;L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III;Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009;M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 22457/08, §§ 96-100, 15 November 2011;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII;Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, 5 July 2005;Mehmet Hatip Dicle v. Turkey, no. 9858/04, § 41, 15 October 2013;Menteş and Others v. Turkey, 28 November 1997, § 107, Reports 1997 VIII;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, ECHR 2009;Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2006-X;Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 48609/06, 18 June 2013;Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 57, 20 December 2007;Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987;Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 71, ECHR 2004 XII;Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, 18 June 2002, § 264;P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56547/00, 11 December 2001;P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, ECHR 2002 VI;Parascineti v. Romania, no. 32060/05, §§ 34-38, 13 March 2012,;Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2002 II;Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, 21 September 2010;Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009;Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281 A;Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, 13 July 2006;S.P., D.P. and A.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 23715/94, Commission decision of 20 May 1996;Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000 XI;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII;Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 V;Stojkovic v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, no. 14818/02, § 25, 8 November 2007;Tauira and 18 Others v. France, application no. 28204/95, Commission decision of 4 December 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 83-B, p. 131;The Argeş College of Legal Advisers v. Romania, no. 2162/05, 8 March 2011;The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia (dec.), no. 9103/04, 22 May 2007;Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 200 –III;Timus and Tarus v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 70077/11, § 58, 15 October 2013;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, ECHR 2009;Velcea and Mazăre v. Romania, no. 64301/01, § 138, 1 December 2009;Velikova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41488/98, 18 May 1999;Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, § 55, 20 April 2010;Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, § 162, 26 November 2013;Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, §§ 89 90, ECHR 2004 VIII;Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 60, Series A no. 33;Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, § 47, 3 February 2009;X v. France, no. 18020/91, § 26, 31 March 1992;Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, § 29, ECHR 2003–IX;Yaşa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 127, Reports 1998 VI;Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001 V
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character)
Separate opinion: TRUE