| Applicant name | ZĂICESCU AND FĂLTICINEANU |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 2 |
| Country | ROMANIA |
| Application no. | 42917/16 |
| Date | 42917/16 |
| Judges | Tim Eicke, Faris Vehabović, Yonko Grozev, Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Sebastian Răduleţu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation 8+14 |
| Reason | Not necessary |
| Type of privacy | Procedural priacy; private life |
| Keywords | Quasi-group complaint |
| Facts of the case | Relying on Article 8, the applicants complained that by secretly instituting extraordinary appeal proceedings aimed at the acquittal of the historically and judicially established perpetrators of crimes against Jews and by denying the applicants access to the proceedings and the files concerning those proceedings, their right to private life and psychological integrity as survivors of the Holocaust had been breached by the Romanian authorities. The applicants also complained that the acquittals and their lack of access to the files had constituted a breach of their rights under Article 14 taken together with Article 8 because the authorities had failed to take into account the anti-Semitic nature of the crimes and to show due diligence in involving the victims of such crimes in the proceedings. This attitude had constituted discrimination against the applicants on ethnic grounds. The Court considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | As to their victimstatus, the Court observes that the complaint lodged by the applicants concerns the reopening of criminal proceedings that re-examined the responsibility of high-ranking military officials for the Holocaust and the lack of access to those proceedings for the applicants or the public. The Court notes that the Government did not deny the applicants’ status as Jews and as victims of the Holocaust. More specifically, they did not contest the applicants’ submissions regarding their home towns and their placement in ghettos at the material time. Therefore, although the applicants were not deported to Transnistria, they nevertheless went through the first phase of the deportation process – namely the transportation in inhuman conditions (the first applicant) and the placement in ghettos with a view to subsequent deportation (both applicants). Accordingly, the Court considers that for the purpose of the Article 8 complaint it is not necessary to establish a direct connection between the acts committed by G.P. and R.D. and the applicants, given that the crimes at issue are by their nature directed against a whole group of people and having regard to the applicants’ personal fate set out above. Therefore, the Court accepts that the applicants, who are Jews and Holocaust survivors, can claim to have personally suffered from an emotional distress when they found out about the reopening of the criminal proceedings and the acquittals of G.P. and R.D. The Court considers that the findings of the Supreme Court of Justice that led to the acquittals of 1998 and 1999 – namely, that the German troops alone had been involved in the Iași pogrom and in the placement of Romanian Jews in ghettos and their subsequent deportation – contradict both the written evidence still contained in the initial conviction fileand the court’s own findings that the placement of Jews in ghettos with a view to their subsequent deportation had been based on lists of names compiled by the Romanian Special Intelligence Service and by the gendarmerie. In concluding that the Iași pogrom and the placement of Romanian Jews in ghettos and their subsequent deportation had been organised and carried out solely by the Germans, the court also overlooked the historical background as reflected by the anti‑Semitic measures taken by the Romanian Government itself at the time. Furthermore, when examining the reasoning of the acquittal decisions, the Court observes that the findings of the Supreme Court of Justice may objectively be seen as excuses or efforts to blur responsibility and put blame on another nation for the Holocaust contrary to well established historical facts – all elements of Holocaust denial and distortion. As regards the alleged failure to inform the public or the applicants of the initiation of the extraordinary appeals and of the acquittals, the Court notes that the retrials undeniably concerned a matter of utmost public interest – namely responsibility for the Holocaust; accordingly, the general public and therefore also the applicants (as survivors of the Holocaust) should have been made aware of the proceedings and their outcome. The Court considers that these elements, coupled with the findings and the reasoning offered by the Supreme Court of Justice for its acquittal decisions , could have legitimately provoked in the applicants feelings of humiliation and vulnerability and caused them psychological trauma. |
| Other Article violation? | 14 |
| Damage awarded | Holds, unanimously, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants EUR 8,500 (eight thousand and five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of costs and expenses |
| Documents | Judgment |