27 Jun Applicable Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of traffic accidents causing severe injuries

The case of Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania (application no. 41720/13) concerned a judge who had been severely injured in a car accident in 2004. The criminal proceedings, which Mr Tănase had joined as a civil party, were discontinued eight years later with a decision not to prosecute the other two drivers involved in the accident. 

Over the next eight years, there were three rounds of proceedings at two levels of jurisdiction. Investigators explored several possibilities as to who had been at fault. 

Before the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Tănase complained in particular that the criminal investigation had been ineffective and too long and that it had been impossible for him to obtain a decision on his civil claim. 

The Grand Chamber took the opportunity to clarify which Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights should be applied in the case of an accident causing severe injury. 

The Court found that neither Article 3 nor Article 8 were applicable in the applicant’s case and declared his complaints under those provisions related to the investigation inadmissible, given the fact that the applicant had never argued during the investigation that the other two drivers had intended to hurt him, and there was no evidence to suggest that that had been the case. Nor had there been any intention to harm the applicant’s physical and psychological integrity, as protected by Article 8. 

Given the life-threatening injuries Mr Tănase had sustained, it decided that it would examine the part of his complaint concerning the effectiveness of the investigation exclusively under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention. 

The European Court of human rights held:

• by 13 votes to four, that there had been no violation of Article 2 as concerned the investigation into the accident. It had been thorough and had resulted in a large body of evidence addressing what could have caused the accident. Mr Tănase had had access to the case file and had been able to make full use of the remedies available to him under domestic law to challenge the authorities’ decisions and to ask for additional evidence; 
• by 16 votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court). Even though his civil claim had never been examined by a criminal court because the authorities had discontinued the proceedings against the other two drivers, he could have used other channels to defend his civil rights; and,
• by 10 votes to seven, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). A period of nearly eight years to complete the investigation, given its complexity, had not been excessive and the authorities had consistently taken steps during the proceedings to clarify the circumstances of the case.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights