CIOBAN v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicant, Mr Marinel Cioban, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Giurgea, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms I. Cambrea and Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. On 24 December 2005 the applicant’s son was involved in a car accident. His car was crashed into by another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction and he was killed instantly. 4. On the same date the Prahova Police Office opened a criminal investigation in order to determine the circumstances of the accident. The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with his loss. 5. In January 2006 the Ploieşti Prosecutor Office brought criminal proceedings for unintentional killing against B.F., allegedly the driver of the vehicle which had caused the accident. 6. Between January 2006 and May 2007 the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office heard the parties and the witnesses, collected statements and carried out a polygraph test on B.F. Following contradictory statements by the two persons who had been in the car which caused the accident, several technical and forensic expert reports were commissioned in order to establish who the driver was. 7. On 31 May 2007, as a result of the contradictory statements regarding who had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office decided to extend the criminal charge of unintentional killing to B.S., the second occupant of the vehicle which had crashed into the applicant’s son’s car. On the same date, the Prosecutor’s Office extended the charges against B.F., charging him additionally with aiding an offender. 8. In September 2007 the applicant sent letters to the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office and the Romanian Ministry of Justice complaining of lack of promptness in the criminal investigation, especially given that the case, in his opinion, was not complex, and asked the domestic authorities to expedite the proceedings. His letters remained unanswered. 9. In September 2007 the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office sent the criminal file back to the Prahova Police Office, requesting it to carry out a polygraph test on B.S. It also ordered that a new expert technical report be prepared and that a confrontation be conducted between the two occupants of the vehicle in order to identify the driver of the car. 10. On 25 April 2008 the applicant asked the Prahova Police Office and the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office to provide him with copies of the relevant documents from the criminal investigation file in order for him to be able to submit them in support of his application to the Court. He also asked to be informed of the state of the proceedings and to be notified of any procedural act his lawyers and he could attend. On 28 May 2008 the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that he could attend a supplementary expert technical investigation that was scheduled to be carried out on 6 June 2008. 11. On 28 August 2008 the Ploieşti Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment charging B.S. with unintentional killing and B.F. with aiding an offender. 12. By a judgment of 2 December 2009 the Ploieşti District Court convicted B.S. and B.F. as charged and sentenced them to four and three years’ imprisonment respectively. It also allowed the applicant’s just satisfaction claims in part and ordered B.S. to pay the applicant 5,600 lei in respect of pecuniary damage, 10,000 lei in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and 5,900 lei in respect of costs and expenses. The parties appealed against the judgment. 13. By a judgment of 19 May 2010 the Prahova County Court increased the amount to be awarded to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage to 30,000 lei and upheld the remainder of the Ploieşti District Court’s judgment. The parties lodged appeals on points of law (recurs) against that judgment. 14. On 2 March 2011 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal rejected the appeals and upheld the judgment of 19 May 2010. 15. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code concerning lifethreatening crimes are described in Pantea v. Romania (no. 33343/96, § 154, ECHR 2003-VI).