CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 février 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }     Communicated on 14 February 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49473/07 Constantin OPREA against Romania lodged on 27 October 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Constantin Oprea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bucharest. On 4 March 2006, a dispute took place between the applicant and a neighbour regarding the parking of their cars. It happened in front of the building where they lived and a few neighbours were present at the incident. The applicant alleged that B.C. hit him several times with a solid object on the head and face, leaving him unconscious for a few moments. Helped by his son and wife, he entered the house and immediately called the police. The applicant alleged that he was bleeding when the police arrived but that the police officers, instead of starting an investigation with respect to the circumstances in which he was hit, imposed a fine on both him and his neighbour for committing the contravention of disturbance of public order. The same day, after the police left, the applicant went to the closest hospital, “Emergency Hospital Sfântul Ioan”, for medical care. In the medical certificate issued on 14 March 2006 by the National Forensic Institute “Mina Minovici”, it was mentioned that the applicant presented traumatic lesions that could have been caused by hitting with a hard object on 4 March 2006. According to the same certificate, the applicant needed at least 7-8 days of medical care to recover. The applicant filed a criminal complaint against his aggressor for the offence of bodily injury under Article 180 § 2 of the Criminal   Code. In his turn, the defendant filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for threat, insult and defamation. The two files were joined and examined together. Both parties to the criminal trial also joined a civil complaint to the criminal one. By a judgment of 25 January 2007, the Bucharest Court of the 6 th   District acquitted both defendants and dismissed the joint civil actions. The defendant indicated by the applicant in the criminal complaint was acquitted on the ground that the applicant had not proved that he was the author of the injuries. The appeal on points of law filed by the applicant was dismissed by a decision of 27 April 2007 of the Bucharest County Court as unfounded. One of the arguments mentioned in the reasoning of the decision was that the simple submission of a medical certificate to the court does not prove the guilt of the defendant. One of the judges drafted a separate opinion according to which the correct solution would have been the quashing of the judgment and the remittal of the file to the court of first instance for the administration of new evidence. He emphasized that for the clarification of the facts, an expert medical report, as well as the hearing of the eye ‑ witness proposed by the applicant and one of the police officers who had drafted the minute of contravention, were absolutely necessary. COMPLAINT Relying on Article 3, the applicant complains about the way the domestic courts approached his criminal complaint, which in his opinion, does not satisfy the requirements of an effective and protective criminal law mechanism against ill-treatment. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the State's positive obligations under Article   3 of the Convention, was the criminal investigation conducted by the authorities with regard to the criminal complaint of the applicant for ill ‑ treatment effective?