I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in PÂRVU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA.

Judgment

FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PÂRVU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 3524/22)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 August 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pârvu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anne Louise Bormann, President, Sebastian Răduleţu, András Jakab, judges,and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 3524/22) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 January 2022 by three Romanian nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”);
the decision to give notice of the application 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 24 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants are the parents and the brother, respectively, of Mr Sorin Pârvu, killed on 26 September 2009 by a police officer during an operation concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant. The case that the applicants brought to the Court concerns the authorities’ responsibility into the killing and the effectiveness of their investigation in that respect. 2. The main facts, including the events leading to Mr Sorin Pârvu’s death and the ensuing criminal investigation, are described in the judgement Pârvu v. Romania, (no. 13326/18, §§ 5-49, 30 August 2022), concerning the application brought by the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu. 3. Immediately after Mr Sorin Pârvu had been shot, one of the police officers noticed that the victim was not the person the police were looking for to arrest that day. An ambulance arrived fifteen minutes later and after unsuccessfully trying to resuscitate Mr Sorin Pârvu, it transported him to the Brăila emergency hospital, where he subsequently died. 4. On 11 June 2010 a prosecutor at the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) decided to open a criminal investigation for qualified murder, based on Articles 174-175 of the Criminal Code, in respect of the police officer, D.G., who had shot Mr Sorin Pârvu in the head. 5. On 7 July 2011 the above-mentioned prosecutor’s office decided to terminate the criminal investigation in respect of D.G., considering that the death of Mr Sorin Pârvu was accidental. 6. On 21 December 2011 the Galaţi Court of Appeal granted an appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 7 July 2011, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that all the factual and legal aspects of the case had not been clarified during the initial investigations. 7. On 24 February 2012 the prosecutor notified D.G. of a change to the legal classification of the criminal charge brought against him to that of aggravated murder (under Article 174 and Article 175 § 1 (i) and (g) of the Criminal Code. 8. On 30 August 2013 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ again decided to terminate the criminal investigation in respect of D.G., considering that the latter was not responsible for Mr Pârvu’s death, which had occurred accidentally. 9. On 5 February 2014 the Galaţi Court of Appeal granted an appeal against the above-mentioned prosecutor’s decision, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that many factual and legal aspects of the case were still to be investigated. The Court of Appeal listed on four full pages all the aspects that had still to be determined through further criminal investigation, including the admission of the evidence suggested by the applicants, who had the procedural standing of civil claimants. That evidence included, for example, the statement of the owner of a nearby kiosk who had witnessed the incident. 10. On 28 August 2014 the prosecutor decided to change again the legal classification of the criminal charge brought against D.G. to murder under Article 188 of the new Criminal Code, which was in force since 1 February 2014. 11. On 3 July 2015 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the third time to end the criminal investigation against D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self-defence. 12. On 26 February 2016 the Brăila County Court granted an appeal against the above-mentioned prosecutor’s decision of 3 July 2015, quashed that decision and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that the prosecutor had not followed or had only followed in part and superficially the indications given by the Galaţi Court of Appeal in its decision of 5 February 2014. The County Court also stated in the above-mentioned decision that the investigations that the Court of Appeal had requested to be carried out were compulsory, not mere recommendations. According to the County Court, the failure to comply with those requirements rendered the investigations incomplete. 13. On 7 June 2018 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the fourth time to end the criminal investigation in respect of the police officer D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self‐defence to defend the life of the other three police officers participating in the operation. 14. On 6 March 2019 the Brăila County Court allowed the appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 7 June 2018, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that some of the investigative measures required by previous judicial decisions were still missing and many aspects of the case had still not been elucidated. 15. On 25 June 2020 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the fifth time to end the criminal investigation in respect of D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self-defence, while also maintaining that the shooting had been accidental. The prosecutor concluded that the fact that none of the police officers had suffered serious injuries could not change the nature of the attack perpetrated by Mr Sorin Pârvu. 16. By a final decision of 8 April 2021, served to the applicants on 12 July 2021, the Brăila County Court dismissed their appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 25 June 2020, considering that there was no contradiction in the prosecutor’s decision of 25 June 2020, as the conclusions concerning legitimate self-defence and accidental shooting “were reached with regard to different moments in time and under different hypotheses”. 17. Referring to Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants claimed that the authorities are responsible for the killing of Mr Sorin Pârvu and that their investigation in that respect was not effective. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
18. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints, which concern the authorities’ responsibility into the killing of Mr Sorin Pârvu and their investigation in that respect, fall to be examined solely under Article 2. 19. For the Government, the application should be dismissed as being essentially the same with the application no. 13326/18, brought by the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu. The applicants contest this thesis. 20. The Court recalls the criteria established in its case-law concerning Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, by which an application is to be declared inadmissible if it “is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court ... and contains no relevant new information” (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 63, ECHR 2009 and Folgerø and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 15472/02, 14 February 2006). The Court must therefore ascertain whether the two applications, no. 13326/18 and the present application, relate essentially to the same person, the same facts and the same complaints. 21. The Court notes that the present application is brought by the parents and the brother, respectively, of Mr Sorin Pârvu (see paragraph 1 above), while the application no. 13326/18 was brought by the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu (see paragraph 2 above). The Court also notes that applicants in the present case participated as injured party in the domestic proceedings and addressed the investigative authorities separately from the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu, including by suggesting specific evidence to be gathered (see paragraph 9 above). Moreover, the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu brought her application in 2018, complaining of the lethal shooting by the police of her husband and of the lack of effective investigation until that date, which was still ongoing in 2018, while the applicants in the present case complained in particular of the ineffectiveness of the entire investigation, which ended in April 2021 (see paragraph 16 above). Therefore, the present application is not substantially the same as application no. 13326/18 (see Ştefan-Gabriel Mocanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 34323/21 and 8 others, § 34, 12 December 2023). The Government’s argument implying that there is identity between the applicants and Mr Sorin Pârvu’s widow stemming from the latter’s full inheritance rights cannot be accepted as relevant (see Ucak et Kargili v. Türkyïye (dec.), nos. 75527/01 and 11837/02, 28 March 2006), while their other argument that the applicants should have lodged their application with the Court earlier to be joined to the case no. 13326/18 for a one‐time examination by the Court concerns rather their second preliminary objection (see paragraphs 22-23 below). Accordingly, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. 22. The Government also raised a preliminary objection that the application was lodged out of the six-month time-limit, because the applicants ought to have displayed more diligence in lodging their application with the Court. For the Government, the applicants had waited too long, bringing their case to the Court more than twelve years after the Mr Sorin Pârvu’s death, almost two years after the fourth quashing by the domestic courts of the prosecutor’s decision to terminate the criminal investigation (see paragraph 14 above) and nine months after final decision of the Brăila County Court was adopted on 8 April 2021. As regard the latter, the Government indicated that the applicants should not have waited for the full decision to be served to them on 12 July 2021. The applicants refute this thesis in the circumstances of the case. 23. Referring to the principles regarding the time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in the context of allegations of ineffective investigations into the death of the applicants’ relatives (Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 258-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the Court notes that the applicants became aware of the full reasoning of the final decision of the Brăila County Court of 8 April 2021 on 12 July 2021 and they lodged their application with the Court on 3 January 2022. The Court cannot accept that, in the circumstances of the present case, the applicants lacked the required diligence by waiting for the end of the domestic proceedings and, in particular, for the full final decision to be served to them. This was not unreasonable so that they can properly argue their case before the Court knowing the reasoning of this decision which was moreover the first judicial decision to confirm the prosecutor office’s thesis (see paragraph 16 above). The current circumstances are largely different from those that lead the Court to sanction the applicants’ lack of diligence in this type of cases (Orić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, §§ 37-41, 13 May 2014). In addition, the Court notes that the applicants had no specific indication from the separate application brought by widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu which was still pending in front of the Court until its judgement delivered on 30 August 2022. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection also. 24. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 25. The general principles concerning the right to life, especially in the context of policing operations, have been summarized in Pârvu (cited above, §§ 71-76). 26. The Court refers to its findings that the domestic investigation into the events leading to Mr Pârvu’s death was not effective given its lack of expedition and lack of thoroughness (Pârvu, cited above § 98). It lasted from September 2009 to April 2021, with numerous judicial decisions to send the case back to the prosecutor because of various omissions in the investigation, and left open a number of questions as to the crucial factual elements of the case (Pârvu, cited above § 80). 27. On the basis of the evidence before it and, notably of the deficiencies of the domestic investigation especially during its initial stages, the Court was neither convinced by the arguments regarding D.G.’s “honest belief” that the cocking of the firearm was absolutely necessary for self-defence in the specific situation, nor by the explanation of the ultimately accidental nature of the shooting (Pârvu, cited above § 82). Moreover, the operation was not planned by the police as to reduce to a minimum any recourse to lethal force (Pârvu, cited above § 87). 28. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, both under its substantial and procedural limbs, as regards the applicants in the present application, as well. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
29. The applicants claimed jointly 65 000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 30. The Government considered that the finding of violation would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. 31. The Court awards the applicants jointly 50 000 EUR in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 50 000 (fifty 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 amount 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 26 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Valentin Nicolescu Anne Louise Bormann Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applicants:
Application no. 3524/22
No. Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1. George PÂRVU
1989
Romanian
Brăila
2. Ionelia MOLDOVEANU
1959
Romanian
Brăila
3. Ionel PÂRVU
1955
Romanian
Brăila

FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PÂRVU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 3524/22)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 August 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pârvu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anne Louise Bormann, President, Sebastian Răduleţu, András Jakab, judges,and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 3524/22) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 January 2022 by three Romanian nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”);
the decision to give notice of the application 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 24 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants are the parents and the brother, respectively, of Mr Sorin Pârvu, killed on 26 September 2009 by a police officer during an operation concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant. The case that the applicants brought to the Court concerns the authorities’ responsibility into the killing and the effectiveness of their investigation in that respect. 2. The main facts, including the events leading to Mr Sorin Pârvu’s death and the ensuing criminal investigation, are described in the judgement Pârvu v. Romania, (no. 13326/18, §§ 5-49, 30 August 2022), concerning the application brought by the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu. 3. Immediately after Mr Sorin Pârvu had been shot, one of the police officers noticed that the victim was not the person the police were looking for to arrest that day. An ambulance arrived fifteen minutes later and after unsuccessfully trying to resuscitate Mr Sorin Pârvu, it transported him to the Brăila emergency hospital, where he subsequently died. 4. On 11 June 2010 a prosecutor at the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) decided to open a criminal investigation for qualified murder, based on Articles 174-175 of the Criminal Code, in respect of the police officer, D.G., who had shot Mr Sorin Pârvu in the head. 5. On 7 July 2011 the above-mentioned prosecutor’s office decided to terminate the criminal investigation in respect of D.G., considering that the death of Mr Sorin Pârvu was accidental. 6. On 21 December 2011 the Galaţi Court of Appeal granted an appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 7 July 2011, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that all the factual and legal aspects of the case had not been clarified during the initial investigations. 7. On 24 February 2012 the prosecutor notified D.G. of a change to the legal classification of the criminal charge brought against him to that of aggravated murder (under Article 174 and Article 175 § 1 (i) and (g) of the Criminal Code. 8. On 30 August 2013 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ again decided to terminate the criminal investigation in respect of D.G., considering that the latter was not responsible for Mr Pârvu’s death, which had occurred accidentally. 9. On 5 February 2014 the Galaţi Court of Appeal granted an appeal against the above-mentioned prosecutor’s decision, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that many factual and legal aspects of the case were still to be investigated. The Court of Appeal listed on four full pages all the aspects that had still to be determined through further criminal investigation, including the admission of the evidence suggested by the applicants, who had the procedural standing of civil claimants. That evidence included, for example, the statement of the owner of a nearby kiosk who had witnessed the incident. 10. On 28 August 2014 the prosecutor decided to change again the legal classification of the criminal charge brought against D.G. to murder under Article 188 of the new Criminal Code, which was in force since 1 February 2014. 11. On 3 July 2015 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the third time to end the criminal investigation against D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self-defence. 12. On 26 February 2016 the Brăila County Court granted an appeal against the above-mentioned prosecutor’s decision of 3 July 2015, quashed that decision and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that the prosecutor had not followed or had only followed in part and superficially the indications given by the Galaţi Court of Appeal in its decision of 5 February 2014. The County Court also stated in the above-mentioned decision that the investigations that the Court of Appeal had requested to be carried out were compulsory, not mere recommendations. According to the County Court, the failure to comply with those requirements rendered the investigations incomplete. 13. On 7 June 2018 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the fourth time to end the criminal investigation in respect of the police officer D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self‐defence to defend the life of the other three police officers participating in the operation. 14. On 6 March 2019 the Brăila County Court allowed the appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 7 June 2018, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that some of the investigative measures required by previous judicial decisions were still missing and many aspects of the case had still not been elucidated. 15. On 25 June 2020 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the fifth time to end the criminal investigation in respect of D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self-defence, while also maintaining that the shooting had been accidental. The prosecutor concluded that the fact that none of the police officers had suffered serious injuries could not change the nature of the attack perpetrated by Mr Sorin Pârvu. 16. By a final decision of 8 April 2021, served to the applicants on 12 July 2021, the Brăila County Court dismissed their appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 25 June 2020, considering that there was no contradiction in the prosecutor’s decision of 25 June 2020, as the conclusions concerning legitimate self-defence and accidental shooting “were reached with regard to different moments in time and under different hypotheses”. 17. Referring to Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants claimed that the authorities are responsible for the killing of Mr Sorin Pârvu and that their investigation in that respect was not effective. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
18. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints, which concern the authorities’ responsibility into the killing of Mr Sorin Pârvu and their investigation in that respect, fall to be examined solely under Article 2. 19. For the Government, the application should be dismissed as being essentially the same with the application no. 13326/18, brought by the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu. The applicants contest this thesis. 20. The Court recalls the criteria established in its case-law concerning Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, by which an application is to be declared inadmissible if it “is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court ... and contains no relevant new information” (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 63, ECHR 2009 and Folgerø and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 15472/02, 14 February 2006). The Court must therefore ascertain whether the two applications, no. 13326/18 and the present application, relate essentially to the same person, the same facts and the same complaints. 21. The Court notes that the present application is brought by the parents and the brother, respectively, of Mr Sorin Pârvu (see paragraph 1 above), while the application no. 13326/18 was brought by the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu (see paragraph 2 above). The Court also notes that applicants in the present case participated as injured party in the domestic proceedings and addressed the investigative authorities separately from the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu, including by suggesting specific evidence to be gathered (see paragraph 9 above). Moreover, the widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu brought her application in 2018, complaining of the lethal shooting by the police of her husband and of the lack of effective investigation until that date, which was still ongoing in 2018, while the applicants in the present case complained in particular of the ineffectiveness of the entire investigation, which ended in April 2021 (see paragraph 16 above). Therefore, the present application is not substantially the same as application no. 13326/18 (see Ştefan-Gabriel Mocanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 34323/21 and 8 others, § 34, 12 December 2023). The Government’s argument implying that there is identity between the applicants and Mr Sorin Pârvu’s widow stemming from the latter’s full inheritance rights cannot be accepted as relevant (see Ucak et Kargili v. Türkyïye (dec.), nos. 75527/01 and 11837/02, 28 March 2006), while their other argument that the applicants should have lodged their application with the Court earlier to be joined to the case no. 13326/18 for a one‐time examination by the Court concerns rather their second preliminary objection (see paragraphs 22-23 below). Accordingly, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. 22. The Government also raised a preliminary objection that the application was lodged out of the six-month time-limit, because the applicants ought to have displayed more diligence in lodging their application with the Court. For the Government, the applicants had waited too long, bringing their case to the Court more than twelve years after the Mr Sorin Pârvu’s death, almost two years after the fourth quashing by the domestic courts of the prosecutor’s decision to terminate the criminal investigation (see paragraph 14 above) and nine months after final decision of the Brăila County Court was adopted on 8 April 2021. As regard the latter, the Government indicated that the applicants should not have waited for the full decision to be served to them on 12 July 2021. The applicants refute this thesis in the circumstances of the case. 23. Referring to the principles regarding the time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in the context of allegations of ineffective investigations into the death of the applicants’ relatives (Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 258-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the Court notes that the applicants became aware of the full reasoning of the final decision of the Brăila County Court of 8 April 2021 on 12 July 2021 and they lodged their application with the Court on 3 January 2022. The Court cannot accept that, in the circumstances of the present case, the applicants lacked the required diligence by waiting for the end of the domestic proceedings and, in particular, for the full final decision to be served to them. This was not unreasonable so that they can properly argue their case before the Court knowing the reasoning of this decision which was moreover the first judicial decision to confirm the prosecutor office’s thesis (see paragraph 16 above). The current circumstances are largely different from those that lead the Court to sanction the applicants’ lack of diligence in this type of cases (Orić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, §§ 37-41, 13 May 2014). In addition, the Court notes that the applicants had no specific indication from the separate application brought by widow of Mr Sorin Pârvu which was still pending in front of the Court until its judgement delivered on 30 August 2022. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection also. 24. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 25. The general principles concerning the right to life, especially in the context of policing operations, have been summarized in Pârvu (cited above, §§ 71-76). 26. The Court refers to its findings that the domestic investigation into the events leading to Mr Pârvu’s death was not effective given its lack of expedition and lack of thoroughness (Pârvu, cited above § 98). It lasted from September 2009 to April 2021, with numerous judicial decisions to send the case back to the prosecutor because of various omissions in the investigation, and left open a number of questions as to the crucial factual elements of the case (Pârvu, cited above § 80). 27. On the basis of the evidence before it and, notably of the deficiencies of the domestic investigation especially during its initial stages, the Court was neither convinced by the arguments regarding D.G.’s “honest belief” that the cocking of the firearm was absolutely necessary for self-defence in the specific situation, nor by the explanation of the ultimately accidental nature of the shooting (Pârvu, cited above § 82). Moreover, the operation was not planned by the police as to reduce to a minimum any recourse to lethal force (Pârvu, cited above § 87). 28. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, both under its substantial and procedural limbs, as regards the applicants in the present application, as well. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
29. The applicants claimed jointly 65 000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 30. The Government considered that the finding of violation would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. 31. The Court awards the applicants jointly 50 000 EUR in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 50 000 (fifty 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 amount 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 26 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Valentin Nicolescu Anne Louise Bormann Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applicants:
Application no. 3524/22
No. Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1. George PÂRVU
1989
Romanian
Brăila
2. Ionelia MOLDOVEANU
1959
Romanian
Brăila
3. Ionel PÂRVU
1955
Romanian
Brăila