MILITARU A OSTATNÍ proti Rumunsku

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF MILITARU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 7005/21 and 4 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 January 2026

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

In the case of Militaru and Others v. Romania,

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

Ana Maria Guerra Martins, President,
Anne Louise Bormann,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting 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 the various dates indicated therein;

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

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 2 December 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), Lupu and Others v. Romania ([Committee], nos. 3107/19 and 16 others, §§ 3-7, 17 January 2023 and Mariana Popa and Others v. Romania ([Committee] nos. 42163/18 and 4 others, §§ 3-10, 8 July 2025).

2. The applicant in application no. 15010/21 (Mr Butucan) was shot in the face on the night of 23-24 December in Bucharest and he was hospitalised until 12 January 1990. The other applicants are relatives of victims who were killed by gunshot during the demonstrations in Brașov, which took place in December 1989 and led to the fall of the communist regime.

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 injury of Mr Butucan and the deaths of the other applicants’ close relatives 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). The applicants participated in the investigation as injured parties and subsequently joined civil claims to the proceedings.

4. Between 1990 and 2007 the prosecutor decided, in different sets of proceedings concerning the applicants or their relatives, not to open an investigation, to discontinue the proceedings or to join them to the main criminal investigation. Their cases were all examined in the main criminal investigation and the applicants brought civil claims.

5. The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and in Mariana Popa and Others (cited above, §§ 3-10).

6. On 5 April 2019 the military prosecutor’s office indicted 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 various other individuals for a range of reasons which prevented the continuation of criminal proceedings.

7. On 9 October 2020 the Preliminary Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered the return of the file to the military prosecutor’s office because of irregularities in the indictment. On 4 February 2021 the military prosecutor’s office recommenced proceedings after correcting the indictment.

8. On 14 June 2024 the Preliminary Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice granted complaints submitted by some of the parties, namely the accused and certain civil parties, against the indictment and ordered the prosecutor’s office to remedy the deficiencies that affected its legality.

9. On 20 September 2024 the same court established, by a final decision, that the deficiencies had not been remedied and ordered the return of the file to the prosecutor’s office.

10. According to the latest information available to the Court on 4 October 2024, it appears that the case is pending before the military prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

11. 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).

12. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, all the applicants complained of a lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for their injuries or the death of their relatives during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and Brașov. They also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989, as the investigation in which the applicants participated was opened by the prosecutor’s office of its own motion in 1990 and is still ongoing.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

13. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

14. The Government raised the preliminary objection of lack of victim status in relation to application no. 15010/21 because the applicant, despite joining the domestic proceedings as a civil party, had not indicated the amount of civil claims requested.

15. The Court 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, the breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006-V). Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in cases where Article 2 of the Convention has been relied on in relation to the death or disappearance of close relatives in circumstances allegedly engaging the responsibility of the State, it has recognised the standing of the victim’s next-of-kin to submit an application even if the next-of-kin was not involved in the domestic proceedings (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 98-100, ECHR 2014).

16. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that there is no evidence indicating an acknowledgment of the violation claimed by the applicant – ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation due to its length and the authorities’ failure to involve them in the proceedings – or any redress afforded to him by the domestic authorities in this connection. Moreover, 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 should have had no effect on the applicants’ standing (see Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania, nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 24‑30, 12 April 2016). Similar considerations apply to the Government’s objection in the present case that some applicants did not quantify their compensation claims.

17. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection.

18. The Court further notes that the complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

19. The general principles concerning the effectiveness of an investigation into violent deaths have been summarised in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 133-35, 24 May 2011), Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 322, ECHR 2014) and Mariana Popa and Others ([Committee] nos. 42163/18 and 4 others, § 14, 8 July 2025). The Court has also previously held, with regard to bodily harm inflicted by agents of the State that did not end in the death of the victim, that the degree and type of force used and the intention or aim behind the use of force were relevant in assessing whether in a particular case the State agents’ actions in inflicting injury short of death were such as to bring the facts within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2 of the Convention (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI). In the circumstances of the present case with regard to the applicant injured by gunshot, the State agents used firearms to suppress the anti-communist demonstrations and the applicant was a victim of conduct which, by its very nature, put his life at grave risk, even though, in the event, he survived (see Şandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 51-54, 8 December 2009). Article 2 of the Convention is thus applicable and the same principles regarding the effectiveness of the investigation apply.

20. In the present case the Court notes that shortly after the events of December 1989, a criminal investigation was opened into the injury of the applicant or the deaths of their close relatives from gunfire.

21. Bearing in mind its jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Court notes that the investigation in the present case was opened 35 years ago and is still ongoing, more than 31 years after Romania ratified the Convention on 20 June 1994.

22. Therefore, the Court cannot depart from its previous conclusions concerning the shortcoming identified in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 133‑45) and Alecu and Others v. Romania (nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, § 39, 27 January 2015) and concludes that the criminal investigation in the present case did not meet the required standards, in particular since it has not been conducted with the reasonable expedition required by the Convention (see paragraphs 3-10 above).

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

24. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

25. The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings concerning the events of December 1989 had been excessively lengthy. They relied in that connection on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

26. In the light of its finding under Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 24 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above, § 181).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

27. The applicants claimed the amounts set out in the appendix in respect of non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses for lawyers’ fees incurred before the Court.

28. The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated.

29. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers that the violation of Article 2 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 of them the amounts set out in the appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable (see, for illustrative purposes, Romic and others v. Croatia [Committee] no. 24501/19, § 24, 25 June 2024).

30. The Court also considers it reasonable to award those applicants who made a claim for the reimbursement of costs the amounts set out in the appendix in respect of lawyers’ fees for the proceedings before the Court.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning Article 2 of the Convention admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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 those amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Valentin Nicolescu Ana Maria Guerra Martins
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications