29. The lack of education or the claim that he had received misleading information about the domestic procedure he had to follow in order to challenge the chief prosecutor’s decision cannot, in the eyes of the Court, discharge the applicant – a person with full legal capacity – from the obligation to pursue the domestic proceedings for the following reasons. While it is true that by simple error the chief prosecutor had informed the applicant that he could lodge a complaint against his decision with “a more senior prosecutor” under Article 399 of the CCP (see paragraph 11 above), the Court notes that instead of trying to understand why the same legal avenue that he had already pursued had been indicated to him, the applicant preferred to remain passive and to later invoke that he was not aware of the applicable legal provisions concerning an appeal with the judge of the pre‑trial chamber. If he had really wished to challenge the decision he could have lodged a complaint against that decision with the chief prosecutor under Article 399 of the CCP, as indicated in the letter accompanying the decision. That undertaking would have made clear to the domestic authorities that he intended to challenge the chief prosecutor’s decision. Moreover, the chief prosecutor had a legal obligation to send the complaint to the competent authority, which in the present case was the judge of the pre-trial chamber. In addition, the Court notes that the applicant was not prevented from seeking the assistance of a lawyer, who could have advised him about the procedure to follow. In his situation he could have applied for legal aid as he had done in the proceedings before the Court (see paragraph 2 above).
Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului
(Decizia din data de 4 aprilie 2017, Urzică împotriva României, disponibilă aici doar în limba engleză)