I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in ȘTEFU v. ROMANIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2019-06-06
• Communication date: 2015-09-01
• Application number(s): 71299/14
• Country:   ROU
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
  Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.684853
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicants, Mr Albert Mihai Ştefu and Ms Lucreţia Ştefu, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1979 and 1954 respectively and live in Târgoviște.
They are represented before the Court by Mr I. Popescu, a lawyer practising in Târgoviște.
The first applicant is the son and the second applicant is the widow of Mr Ştefu Mihail who died as a result of an explosion.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On the morning of 7 February 2000 Mr Ştefu, a civil servant working for the Târgovişte’s office of the Romanian Post Office, was the victim of a tragic accident.
A strong explosion occurred when he turned on the light in his office, causing his death and the partial destruction of the building.
The firemen arrived at the scene of the accident drafted an on‐the‐spot report on the same day.
Another report was drafted by the Dâmboviţa Labour Inspectorate.
According to both reports the explosion had been caused by a massive accumulation of methane gas ignited by an electrical spark.
As a state company, the Romanian Post office was responsible for inspecting its own buildings.
The forensic examination of Mr Ştefu concluded that his death had been caused by the explosion.
A criminal investigation was initiated.
The officials had to discover the source of what initial evidence indicated to be methane gas that leaked from a duct or tunnel or came from the sewer system and built up in the basement of the building.
On 3 June 2000 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Târgovişte County Court indicted three employees of the state-owned gas company, which was the technical operator of the national methane gas transmission system, for non-compliance with the safety regulations and negligence in the performance of their duties.
They were also charged with the offences of manslaughter and destruction.
The applicants and the Regional Department of Ploiești Post Office joined civil complaints to the criminal proceedings seeking compensation in respect of the damage caused by the explosion.
The Târgovişte District Court heard the accused and a number of witnesses.
It ordered an expert report, which was produced on 21 October 2002.
The report stated that the accumulation of gas was not the main cause of the explosion.
The applicants submitted objections to the report pointing out on the lack of impartiality of the expert.
After three years, on 7 July 2003 the Târgovişte District Court sent the file back to the prosecutor’s office instructing him to order a pyrotechnical and an expert gas report.
The prosecutor appealed against that decision claiming that any additional evidence could be adduced directly before the court.
On 27 October 2003 the county court dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor and the case file was remitted to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation.
On 2 March 2005 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Dâmboviţa County Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the three employees of the gas company.
It held that it could not be established a causal link between the non-observance of their professional duties and the explosion.
It also noted the lack of any form of guilt on their part and concluded that the explosion had been a case of force majeure.
The applicants challenged that decision.
The chief prosecutor dismissed the applicants’ complaint on 6 May 2005.
The applicants and the Romanian Post Office lodged complaints against that decision pointing out that the accused’s obligations consisted in detecting the gas leaks in the area surrounding the building of the Post Office between 6 January and 3 February 2000.
Accordingly, the investigators’ conclusion that the gas company did not bear any responsibility for the explosion was wrong.
The Romanian Post office submitted that the employees having offices in the building had informed the gas company about the strong gas smells in their offices in the period preceding the explosion.
By a judgment of 6 June 2005 the Dâmboviţa County Court relinquished competence in favour of the Târgovişte District Court.
On 26 January 2006 the Târgovişte District Court allowed the applicants’ complaint.
It noted that the three accused had been charged with the detection of the gas leaks.
Noting the contradictions between the conclusions of the two gas reports in the file, the district court pointed out that although the prosecutor’s office had been instructed to order a pyrotechnical expert report, such a report had not been drafted.
The case file was sent therefore to the prosecutor’s office in order to clarify all these aspects.
On 12 December 2006 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Târgovişte District Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the three accused in connection with the offences concerning the infringement of the safety regulations.
By the same decision the case file was sent to the criminal investigation office of the Târgovişte Police with the instruction to continue the criminal investigation in connection with the other offences and to order a pyrotechnic expert report.
On 18 September 2008 the file was transferred to the Dâmboviţa Police Inspectorate.
On 22 June 2011 the investigating authorities sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office, proposing to discontinue the investigation in respect of the offence of negligent conduct under Article 249 of the Criminal Code as the limitation period for criminal liability in respect of this offence had expired.
As regards the offences of manslaughter and negligent destruction under Articles 178 and 219 of the Criminal Code, the investigators considered that there was enough evidence in the case file that the three accused had committed these offences.
In this respect they noted that according to the pyrotechnic report the explosion had been caused, among other causes, by holes on the gas distribution duct belonging to the gas company.
The causes of the holes were the non-replacement of the duct and the lack of efficient technical checks.
Consequently, on 19 September 2011 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Târgovişte District Court decided to continue the investigation with respect to the offences of manslaughter and negligent destruction.
On an unspecified date the file was transferred to the Târgovişte District Court.
By a judgment of 15 March 2012 the Târgovişte District Court acquitted the three employees of the gas company.
The court concluded that the three employees could not be held liable for the explosion because it was not the direct consequence of the absence of a technical inspection of the gas conduct by the employees.
The main reason for the explosion was the non-replacement of the gas duct, which should have been replaced at least twenty years before the accident and therefore the owner of the building should be held liable for the explosion.
The civil complaints lodged by the applicants and the Romanian Post office were dismissed on the ground that there was no causal link between the conduct of the gas company’s employees and the damages caused by the explosion.
The court noted that the applicants had the possibility of lodging a new separate civil action for damages.
The prosecutor’s office and all the civil parties, including the applicants, appealed.
They pointed out that the gas company and its employees in charge with the detection of gas leaks should be held liable for the explosion.
In this respect they contended that if the gas company’s employees had complied with their professional duties and had detected the gas leaks the explosion would not have occurred.
On 11 January 2013 the Ploiești Court of Appeal allowed the appeals on points of law and set aside the judgment of the first-instance court.
It noted that the limitation period for criminal liability in respect of the offences of manslaughter and negligent destruction had expired before the date of the last hearing; in spite of its obligation to raise this issue of its own motion and to ask the defendants whether they agreed to have the criminal proceedings continued, the first-instance court had examined the merits of the case, acquitted the defendants and dismissed the civil complaints.
The appeal court sent the case back to the first-instance court.
On 30 December 2013 the Târgovişte District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the three defendants noting that the limitation period for criminal liability in respect of the offences of manslaughter and negligent destruction had expired.
The court considered however that the explosion could have been avoided had the gas company’s employees had observed their professional duties.
Accordingly, it partly allowed the applicants’ civil complaints and ordered the defendants to pay jointly with their employer, the gas company, 50,000 Romanian lei (“RON”) (approximately 11,360 euros “EUR”) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Ştefu’s widow and EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Ştefu’s son.
The applicants appealed.
On 12 May 2014 the Ploiești Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeals as regards the civil complaints and consequently increased to amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The court awarded RON 150,000 (approximately EUR 34,000) to each applicant.
COMPLAINT The applicants complain under 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal investigation into the causes of the death of their father and husband.
They also complain that the criminal proceedings against the individuals allegedly liable for the explosion were terminated owing to the statutory limitation of their criminal liability.