4.  The applicants are all Romanian nationals of Roma origin and heirs of I.B., who instituted the domestic proceedings. Those proceedings were still pending when I.B. died on 1 April 2010. 5.  I.B.’s heirs pursued the case before the domestic courts and lodged a complaint before the Court both on his own and their behalf. 6.  On the night of 15 August 2008, L.N. moved in with her boyfriend, the fifth applicant, at his father’s (I.B.’s) home. She was sixteen at the time. 7.  The next morning, accompanied by the second and third applicants, L.N. went to Clejani Police and made a written statement before the chief police expressing her wish to live in her boyfriend’s home. She chose to make this statement because she came from an affluent non-Roma family.
The same evening V.M., the applicants’ neighbour, gave a statement to the police, confirming that L.N. had arrived and was staying voluntarily in I.B.’s home. 8.  On 21 August 2008 L.N. and her boyfriend were invited to the Clejani Mayor’s Office, where they met with the deputy mayor, a representative of the Department for Social Assistance from the mayor’s office, the chief police from the Clejani Police Office, and two police officers from the neighbouring commune of Bulbucata and the town Mihăileşti. L.N. reiterated that she was living with the Boacă family voluntarily and asked the police to hand over her jewellery and her mobile phone to her mother. 9.  On 27 August 2008, around noon, the Clejani chief of police, together with members of the Giurgiu Rapid Intervention Squad (“the R.I.S.”, Detaşamentul Poliţiei pentru Intervenţie Rapidă) and two plain-clothes policemen travelled by car to I.B.’s house. One of the plain-clothes policemen got out of the vehicle and asked I.B. if he was keeping a girl in his home against her will. He reiterated that L.N. was staying with them voluntarily, as she herself had declared in front of the authorities. He called for L.N. to come out of the house. He asked the policemen if they had a search warrant, to which one of them reacted by hitting him in the face and telling him that his warrant consisted of “a fist and a gun”. They told him that the warrant was at the mayor’s office. 10.  Meanwhile L.N. came out of the house and reiterated that she was living there of her own free will. At the sight of L.N., the man who had hit I.B. signalled to the masked R.I.S. officers to enter the yard. 11.  I.B. took refuge in the yard. Several other people were also present in the house at that time: I.B.’s sons, the fifth and the sixth applicants; I.B.’s partner, the seventh applicant; and C.I., I.B.’s daughter-in-law, along with her minor children I.A.B. (three years and eight months) and G.M.B. (one year and eight months; see paragraphs 37 and 64 (b) below). 12.  The police broke a gate and five windows. They dragged L.N. off the premises. In the course of the assault, the police fired rubber bullets. I.B. witnessed that the sixth applicant, who had become scared and started running towards the back yard, was hit in the buttocks by a bullet fired by one of the policemen. He fell to the ground and was helped up by two neighbours. The masked police continued to fire in the air and threw tear gas. The children I.A.B. and G.M.B. lost consciousness. 13.  The sixth applicant was taken to hospital in Bolintin Deal. The medical report indicated the existence of a superficial wound and gave a detailed description of the ecchymosis (bruising). It concluded that the wound could have been caused by the impact of a hard object, but excluded firearms as there were no traces of gunpowder or an ecchymosed perilesional ring. The sixth applicant was 15 years old at the time. 14.  I.B., the applicants, and some of their neighbours left for the mayor’s office to ask about the search warrant. Shortly afterwards, police officers entered the office, but the mayor asked them to leave again as the situation was calm. It was found that the police did not have a warrant to enter I.B.’s home that day. 15.  Relying on the findings of the domestic courts, the Government made the following submissions as to the incident in question. 16.  On 27 August 2008 L.N.’s father reported to the police that his daughter had disappeared and had apparently gone to her boyfriend’s home. He believed that his daughter was being kept against her will and thought that she might have been drugged. 17.  The police decided to investigate the whereabouts of the girl. As the boyfriend had a criminal record of violent crime and as the Boacă family members were known to the police for being violent, the local police team was reinforced by a team of five members of the R.I.S. 18.  Upon arrival at I.B.’s home, the police showed their badges and inquired about the girl. I.B. and the fifth applicant invited them in. Four police officers entered the house and talked to L.N. The Boacă family members tried to influence L.N., but eventually she decided to go with the police back to her parents’ home. 19.  At that point, the Boacă family became violent: the seventh applicant shouted “nobody leaves alive” and the men picked up bats and knives, threatening L.N.’s and the police officers’ physical integrity. In order to protect L.N. and themselves, the police issued a warning and then, as it had no effect, used tear gas against the assailants. The attack continued as the Boacă family threw stones, bricks and glass at the police car where L.N. had been put for safety. As a fresh warning was also ignored, the police fired vertical warning shots in the air. 20.  According to the police statements, nobody was injured during the operation. 21.  On 12 and 17 September and 24 November 2008 I.B. and his counsel filed criminal complaints against the policemen involved in the incident of 27 August 2008, alleging brutality. They described in detail the police operation and the harm sustained by the Boacă family members, including the destruction of their property. I.B. also complained that this was not the first instance of police brutality against his family and believed that the police discriminated against them and treated them badly because of their Roma origin. He informed the prosecutor that he wished to produce documents and to bring eyewitnesses to support his allegations. 22.  The investigation was carried out by the prosecutor’s office attached to Giurgiu County Court. The prosecutor in charge took statements from the eight police officers who had participated in the events: the chief of police, the two local policemen and the five members of the rapid intervention squad. They all described the events as in paragraphs 16 to 20 above. L.N. and her parents also gave statements to the police. 23.  Nobody from the Boacă family was interviewed by the police. The court officer in charge of the service procedure recorded that I.B. and the fifth applicant had refused to accept the summonses, which had therefore been posted on their door. I.B. and the fifth applicant had informed the court officer that Romano CRISS had taken on their defence case and that they would go to the prosecutor’s office if summonsed. 24.  According to the police’s mission statement and the report of the operation, the police officers had been equipped with firearms and tear gas and had used them in self-defence. 25.  The investigators concluded in their report that the use of force had been proportionate and had lasted only as long as the Boacă family continued to be violent. They ruled out any racial motive for the operation. They also recorded that the damage to the police van was being examined by a panel which would make a proposal regarding appropriate compensation. 26.  Based on the investigators’ report, on 7 May 2009 the prosecutor’s office decided not to prosecute. It found that the police officers had had no intention of harming the Boacă family members. The prosecutor considered the force used to have been only defensive and employed in order to allow the policemen to leave the premises safely with L.N. after the police had come under attack by the Boacă family. The prosecutor also concluded that the injury sustained by the sixth applicant was not consistent with a gunshot wound and was thus irrelevant for the purposes of the investigation. Lastly, the prosecutor noted that I.B. and the fifth applicant had refused to accept the summons to give statements in the case. 27.  I.B. contested the decision, arguing that the investigators had failed to hear evidence from the eyewitnesses. On 12 June 2009 the prosecutor in chief of the Giurgiu County Prosecutor’s Office upheld the decision of 7 May 2009 (see paragraph 26 above). 28.  I.B. lodged a complaint against the prosecutors’ decisions with the Giurgiu County Court. He pointed out that the prosecutors had failed to question the eyewitnesses and had only taken statements from the policemen involved. He provided the names of the eyewitnesses. He also maintained that he had not received any summons to appear before the prosecutor. 29.  The County Court gave its ruling on 11 November 2009. Based on the evidence in the file, it dismissed the complaint. It found that the police officers had acted within the lawful limits of their authority. Their purpose had not been to harm the Boacă family members, but rather to protect themselves and L.N. from imminent attack. It also dismissed as unfounded I.B.’s allegation that he had not been invited to testify before the prosecutor. 30.  I.B. appealed against that decision but died while the appeal proceedings were still pending. On 12 October 2010, based on a certificate issued on 15 September 2010 by the local administration, the applicants (except for the seventh applicant, Mrs Nina Niculae) were recognised as heirs. The seventh applicant, who had also expressed her wish to participate in the proceedings after I.B.’s death, did not object to the interlocutory judgment of 12 October 2010. She did not participate in the ensuing proceedings. 31.  On 14 December 2010, based on the evidence in the file, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The County Court decision thus became final.