Last updated: July 2021 Romania Ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1994 National Judge: Iulia Antoanella Motoc (2013-2022) Judges’ CVs are available on the ECHR Internet site Previous Judge: Marin Voicu (1996-1998), Corneliu Bîrsan (1998-2013) List of judges of the Court since 1959 The Court dealt with 3,308 applications concerning Romania in 2020, of which 2,960 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 82 judgments (concerning 348 applications), 64 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Applications Applications pending before the court 2019 2020 2021* processed in on 01/07/2021 Applications allocated 2651 2991 1647 Applications pending before a judicial 6675 to a judicial formation formation: Communicated to the 1204 1171 531 Single Judge 383 Government Applications decided: 3261 3308 2518 Committee (3 Judges) 5768 - Declared inadmissible 2403 2333 1948 Chamber (7 Judges) 524 or struck out (Single Judge) Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 0 - Declared inadmissible 605 620 452 or struck out (Committee) - Declared inadmissible 8 7 1 or struck out Romania and ... (Chamber) - Decided by judgment 245 348 117 The Registry The task of the Registry is to provide * January to July 2021 For information about the Court’s judicial formations legal and administrative support to the and procedure, see the ECHR internet site. Court in the exercise of its judicial Statistics on interim measures can be found here. functions. It is composed of lawyers, administrative and technical staff and translators. There are currently 624 Registry staff members. Press country profile – Romania respect for his private life and Noteworthy cases, judgments correspondence. Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for delivered private and family life, the home and correspondence) Grand Chamber Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Muhammad and Muhammad v. Others v. Romania Romania 29.11.2016 15.10.2020 The case concerned a request for the The case concerned proceedings as a result restitution of a place of worship that had of which the applicants, Pakistani nationals belonged to the Greek Catholic Church and living lawfully in Romania, were declared was transferred during the totalitarian undesirable and deported. regime to the ownership of the Orthodox Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 Church. (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion No violation of the Article 6 § 1 in respect of aliens) of the right of access to a court Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Mihalache v. Romania breach of the principle of legal certainty 08.07.2019 Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the In this case, Mr Mihalache submitted that length of the proceedings he had been prosecuted twice for having No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of refused to undergo a blood test in the discrimination) taken together with Article 6 framework of a police control with a view to § 1 in respect of the applicants’ right of determining his alcohol blood level. access to a court in comparison with the Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right Orthodox parish not to be tried or punished twice) The Court further held that that it was not Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of 25.06.2019 discrimination) taken together with Article 6 The case concerned a judge who had been § 1 in so far as it concerned an alleged severely injured in a car accident in 2004. difference of treatment compared with The criminal proceedings, which Mr Tănase other Greek Catholic parishes. had joined as a civil party, were discontinued eight years later with a Gherghina v. Romania decision not to prosecute the other two 18.09.2015 drivers involved in the accident. The case concerned a disabled student’s Before the Court, Mr Tănase complained in complaint that he was not able to continue particular that the criminal investigation his university studies owing to a lack of had been ineffective and too long and that suitable facilities on the premises of the it had been impossible for him to obtain a universities where he attended courses. decision on his civil claim. Case declared inadmissible for No violation of Article 2 as concerned the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. investigation into the accident The Court, reiterating that those who wish No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to complain to the European Court against to court) a State have to first use remedies provided No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair for by the national legal system, found that trial within a reasonable time) Mr Gherghina’s reasons for not pursuing Bărbulescu v. Romania certain legal remedies with regard to his complaints had not been convincing. 05.09.2017 The case concerned the decision of a Mocanu and Others v. Romania private company to dismiss an employee 17.09.2014 after monitoring his electronic The case concerned the investigation and communications and accessing their the length of the proceedings which contents, and the alleged failure of the followed the violent crackdown on domestic courts to protect his right to anti-government demonstrations in 2 Press country profile – Romania Bucharest in June 1990. During the Creangă v. Romania crackdown, Ms Mocanu’s husband was killed 23.02.2012 by gunfire and Mr Stoica was arrested and The case concerned a police officer’s ill-treated by the police. deprivation of liberty in connection with a Violation of the procedural aspect of largescale criminal investigation aimed at Article 2 (right to life - investigation) in dismantling a petroleum-trafficking respect of Ms Mocanu network. Violation of the procedural aspect of Article Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading and security) on account of Mr Creangă’s treatment - investigation) in respect of deprivation of liberty on 16 July 2003, at Mr Stoica least from 12 noon to 10 p.m., and his Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair placement in pre-trial detention on 25 July hearing within a reasonable time) in respect 2003 of the Association “21 December 1989” No violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of Centre For Legal Resources On Behalf Mr Creangă’s deprivation of liberty from 10 of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania p.m. on 16 July 2003 to 10 p.m. on 18 July 2003 17.07.2014 The case concerned the death of a young Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania man of Roma origin – who was HIV positive 17.12.2004 and suffering from a severe mental Conviction of journalists for insult and disability – in a psychiatric hospital. The defamation after publishing an article in application was lodged by a which they questioned the legality of a nongovernmental organisation (NGO) on contract signed by Constanţa City Council. his behalf. Violation of Article 10 (freedom of Violation of Article 2 (right to life), in both expression) its substantive and its procedural aspects Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective Brumărescu v. Romania remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 28.10.1999 Among other things, the Court found that, Refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to in the exceptional circumstances of the recognise that the lower courts had case, and bearing in mind the serious jurisdiction to deal with a claim for recovery nature of the allegations, it was open to the of possession. NGO to act as a representative of Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) Mr Câmpeanu, even though the Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 organisation was not itself a victim of the (protection of property) alleged violations of the Convention. Sindicatul ‘Păstorul cel Bun’ v. Chamber and Committee Romania Cases concerning right to life 09.07.2013 (Article 2) The case concerned the refusal by the Romanian State of an application for Violation of Article 2 registration of a trade union formed by priests of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Andreea-Marusi Dumitru v. Romania No violation of Article 11 (freedom of 31.03.2020 assembly and association) The case concerned the effectiveness and The Court held that in refusing to register length of the investigation conducted after the applicant union, the State had simply the applicant sustained gunshot wounds declined to become involved in the during a police operation at a goods train organisation and operation of the Romanian depot in November 2005. Orthodox Church, thereby observing its Ioniță v. Romania duty of denominational neutrality under Article 9 of the Convention. 10.01.2017 The case concerned the death of the applicants’ four-year-old son following an operation. The applicants complained that the authorities had failed to effectively - 3 - Press country profile – Romania investigate the incident, despite their Cases concerning the 1989 repeated claims that it had been caused by anti-communist demonstrations the negligence of medical staff. Alecu and Others v. Romania Crăiniceanu and Frumușanu v. 27.01.2015 Romania The applicants are the victims or heirs of 24.04.2012 victims of the armed crackdown on Deaths of two people who were shot on demonstrations against the communist 25 September 1991 during rioting in front dictatorship, beginning on 21 December of the Government building in Bucharest 1989 in Bucharest and in other cities in the and the subsequent investigation (not country, which led to the collapse of the completed 20 years after the events). regime. The case concerns the investigation into those events. Panaitescu v. Romania Violation of Article 2 (investigation) 10.04.2012 Violation of Article 3 (investigation) The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the Romanian authorities’ Association “21 December 1989” and failure to provide him with specific anti- Others v.