5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Cluj‑Napoca. 6.  The applicant is the son and heir of Mr C. Pleş. He replaced his father in the domestic proceedings after his death. 7.  The applicant’s father was shot on 21 December 1989 while participating in a demonstration organised in Cluj against N. Ceauşescu. He was immediately hospitalised and diagnosed with “a gunshot wound in the right side of the chest, rupture of the right lung and fracture of ribs seven and eight, plus a gunshot wound in the right arm”. Following surgery, two lobes of his right lung were removed. He was left with a breathing deficit of over 30%, paresis of his right arm, and a permanent disability that prevented him from continuing to work to support his family. Furthermore, in subsequent years he was hospitalised many times because of serious breathing problems. 8.  Criminal proceedings were instituted against the army commanders who had ordered the shooting of demonstrators during the events of December 1989 in Cluj. Many victims of the repression joined civil complaints to the proceedings, requesting compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant’s father lodged one such civil complaint, requesting 150,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 4,100 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage, ROL 500,000,000 (approximately EUR 14,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and ROL 50,000,000 (about 1,400 euros) for costs and expenses incurred during the trial. 9.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s father died. He was replaced as a civil party in the proceedings by the applicant. 10.  By a judgment of 23 May 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, acting as a first-instance court, convicted five of the officers involved in the events of December 1989 in Cluj. They were ordered to pay compensation jointly with the Ministry of National Defence to all eighty‑four civil parties in the case. The court granted the applicant ROL 150,000,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and ROL 50,000,000 for costs and expenses. It omitted to grant the claim for ROL 500,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, without providing any reason. 11.  Eighteen civil parties to the criminal proceedings, including the applicant, lodged an appeal on points of law, complaining about the way in which the first-instance court had examined their claims for damages. The grounds of appeal of the civil parties were not identical. In most of the cases they concerned the amount of damages awarded. The applicant complained that the first-instance court had not granted him the requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 12.  By a decision of 20 March 2006, a panel of nine judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed all the appeals lodged by the civil parties. The court of last resort referred to the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Civil Code concerning compensation for damages in the context of civil actions joined to criminal proceedings (see paragraph 13 below) and without examining in particular any of the civil parties’ appeals, it dismissed all the appeals as ill‑founded.