IANCU A RISTEA proti Rumunsku

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF IANCU AND RISTEA v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 9791/19 and 9946/19)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 October 2025

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

In the case of Iancu and Ristea v. Romania,

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

Faris Vehabović, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
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 8 February 2019, and represented by Ms. E. Arjoca, a lawyer practising in Bucharest;

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

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 23 September 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) and Lupu and Others v. Romania ([Committee], nos. 3107/19 and 16 others, §§ 3-7, 17 January 2023).

2. The first applicant’s daughter and the second applicant participated in the events which led to the fall of the communist regime in December 1989. The first applicant’s daughter aged 27 was killed by gunshot during the demonstrations which took place in Bucharest on 21 December 1989. On the night of 21/22 December 1989, the second applicant was injured by gunshot in his lower left leg. He was in hospital between 21 December 1989 and 17 January 1990.

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 use of violence against the demonstrators, including the death of the first applicant’s daughter and the injury by gunshot of the second applicant during these events. 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. In parallel, another investigation concerning acts of violence, the illegal deprivation of liberty and abusive investigation against a large number of persons on the same occasion, including the second applicant, culminated in the committal for trial of senior military and public officials and their subsequent conviction by a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 10 May 1991, which became final on 14 November 1991. The Supreme Court’s decision does not indicate whether the applicants participated in those proceedings (see, for illustrative purposes, Giurcanu and Others v. Romania [Committee], nos. 30365/15 and 2 others, § 7, 16 October 2018 and Bănuțoiu and Ștefoglu v. Romania [Committee], nos. 64752/13 and 54607/14, § 7, 3 July 2018). No documents submitted by the parties make mention of their participation therein.

5. The applicants’ cases were all examined in the main criminal investigation (see paragraph 3 above), and the applicants either brought civil claims or participated in the proceedings as injured parties.

6. The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Mariana Popa and Ohers v. Romania ([Committee], nos. 42163/18 and 4 others, §§ 3-10, 8 July 2025).

7. By an indictment of 5 April 2019 the military prosecutor’s office also decided to discontinue the investigation of 627 injured persons, including the applicants. According to the latest information provided to the Court by the Government on 16 January 2020, the applicants’ complaints have thus been dismissed, the proceedings regarding their claims being discontinued. In their submissions, the applicants claim that the indictment was returned to the military prosecutor’s office owing to irregularities and that their complaints continue to be investigated.

8. 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).

9. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the lack of an effective criminal investigation by the authorities, capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible for his injury by gunshot, in the case of the second applicant, or the death of his daughter, in the case of the first applicant, during the events of December 1989.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

11. The Government raised preliminary objections in respect of both applications.

12. The Government alleged that the second applicant’s case should be considered under Article 3 of the Convention, and not under Article 2, as he had not lost his life during the events and his injury had not been life‑threatening.

13. The Court had 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).

14. In the present case, the Court notes that it is undisputed that in December 1989, the State agents used firearms to suppress anti‑communist demonstrations and that consequently hundreds lost their lives. In these circumstances, and in particular given the degree and type of force used, the Court concludes that the second applicant was the victim of conduct which, by its very nature, put his life at grave risk even though, in the event, he survived (see also Makaratzis v. Greece, cited above, §§ 73 in fine and 74, and Şandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 51-54, 8 December 2009).

15. Article 2 of the Convention is thus applicable in the instant case and the same principles regarding the effectiveness of the investigation apply.

16. The Government then argued that the criminal investigation regarding the situation of the second applicant was closed prior to 20 June 1994, the date of the ratification of the Convention by Romania. They refer to the investigation closed in 1991, culminating in the conviction of multiple persons by the Supreme Court of Justice (see paragraph 4 above). The applicant submitted that he did not participate in the said investigation.

17. The Government further argued that both applicants were no longer parties to the main criminal investigation, given the discontinuation of the proceedings in April 2019 regarding the events having taken place prior to 22 December 1989 (see paragraph 7 above) and that the applicants do not have victim status since they failed to claim any specific amounts in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages before the courts. Both applicants contend that they were parties to the main criminal investigation, which was still ongoing at the time of the introduction of their applications before the Court on 8 February 2019 and that their complaints continue to be investigated (see paragraph 7 above).

18. The Court has already defined its jurisdiction ratione temporis in similar cases (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, cited above, §§ 114-18, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 207‑11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), concluding that it was competent to examine complaints relating to the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations into the events of December 1989 when the majority of the proceedings in respect of a case and the most important procedural measures were carried out after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Romania.

19. The Court also 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, a breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006‑V).

20. In the present case, as the investigation has been opened by the authorities of their own motion (see paragraph 4 above), an application by the applicants to join the main investigation as civil parties or otherwise should have had no effect on the applicants’ standing (see Alecu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, § 31, 27 January 2015, and Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania, nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 24‑30, 12 April 2016).

21. In any event, the Court notes that after 20 June 1994 the applicants actively participated in the main criminal investigation, to which they also joined civil claims (see paragraph 3 above). It also notes that there is no evidence indicating an acknowledgement of the violation claimed by the applicants (namely the ineffectiveness of the main criminal investigation) or any redress being afforded to them by the domestic authorities in this respect. In this context and considering the applicants’ complaint, the Court cannot agree with the Government that the alleged discontinuation of the proceedings in April 2019 led to them losing their victim status.

22. Therefore, the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objections.

23. The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It furthermore notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

24. The general principles concerning the effectiveness of an investigation into violent deaths or injuries suffered in life‑threatening circumstances have been summarised in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 133-35) and Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 322, ECHR 2014).

25. In the present case, the Court notes that shortly after the events of December 1989 a criminal investigation was opened into the death of the first applicant’s daughter and the injury from gunfire of the second applicant (see paragraph 3 above).

26. Having regard to its jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider only that part of the investigation which occurred after 20 June 1994, the date on which the Convention came into force in respect of Romania (see Mocanu and Others (cited above, §§ 205‑11)), the Court further notes that the main criminal investigation to which the applicants were parties was opened in 1990 and continued after 20 June 1994 (see paragraph 4 above). The Court has already found that it was procedurally defective, not only by reason of its excessive length and long periods of inactivity, but also because of the lack of involvement of the victims in the proceedings and of the lack of information afforded to the public about the progress of the inquiry (Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above, §§ 133‑45; Mocanu and Others, cited above, §§ 335-48, and Alecu and Others, cited above, §§ 39-40).

27. Regardless of whether the proceedings concerning the applicants were discontinued in April 2019 (according to the Government) or pursued in a parallel ongoing investigation (according to the applicants), the Court holds that the criminal investigation in the present case does not meet the required standards, in particular since it has not been conducted with the reasonable expedition required by the Convention. Moreover, the Court notes that the alleged discontinuation of the main investigation concerning the applicants took place in April 2019 and was subsequent to the introduction of the present applications.

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

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

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

30. The applicants claimed the amounts set out in the appendix in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They made no claim for the reimbursement of costs and expenses.

31. The Government contested the amounts as unsubstantiated.

32. 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 them the amounts set out in the appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Valentin Nicolescu Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: