ECtHR Cases with Criminal Law Implications (July 2016 – September 2016)
| DOI | 10.1177/203228441600700407 |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Updates |
New Journal of Eu ropean Crimina l Law, Vol. 7, Issue 4, 2016 483
UPDATES
ECtHR CASES WITH
CRIMINAL LAW IMPLICATIONS
JULY 2016 SEPTEMBER 2016
B W
INVESTIGATION INTO UNLAWFUL DEATH
MIRCEA POP V. ROMANIA NO. 43885/13
e applica nt, Mircea Pop, is a Romanian national who was bor n in 1960 and lives in
Constana (Romania).
e case concerned the death of Mr Pop’s son in a work accident, and the
subsequent investigation into the circums tances surrounding the fatal acc ident.
In September 2005 Mr Pop’s son, who was 18 years old at the time, wa s found dead
in an enclosed compartment in the hold of a ship which was under construction. He
had been sent, alone, to work on the vessel by the company U., his employer. He was
holding an electric lamp connected to the mains in h is right hand. e forensic
medical o cer concluded that Mr Pop’s son had died a violent death by electrocution.
Mr Pop lodged a criminal complaint against the foreman in charge and the
company managers, submitting t hat they had been responsible for his son’s death and
had infringed t he health and safety legislation by sending him to perform work for
which he was not quali ed and for which he had not been provided w ith the requisite
protective e quipment. e expert opinion commis sioned by the prosecution con rmed
that the death had been caus ed by the person’s contact with the lamp, which had be en
defective and had not been properly connected to the mains, concluding that the
victim had made the mistake of using a lamp plugged i nto the mains instead of a
portable lamp. In November 2005 the labour i nspectorate imposed a ne on the
company U. on the grounds that the accident had been cause d by inappropriate use of
the electric lamp, that the victim had not received work safety training and that he
had not been provided with the appropriate secu rity equipment.
Mr Pop’s criminal complaints were dismissed severa l times, and each time he
contested the decision. At the end of the proceedi ngs on 27 December 2012 the
Călărai rst-instance court del ivered a nal judgment dism issing Mr Pop’s complaint,
concluding that his son’s death had been caused by the victim’s own negligence
because, as a tra ined welder, he should have known about the ban on using the la mp
To continue reading
Request your trial