CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 16 September 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 58616/13 Ioan CIOBAN and others against Romania lodged on 6 September 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants live in Pusta, Sălaj County and are represented before the Court by Mr A. Naste, a lawyer practicing in Oradea. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 18 May 2009 the applicants, who are of Roma origin, were approached by agents of the Oradea local police outside a shopping centre in Oradea. The agents accused them of having parked their cars on a forbidden area and of having littered the public space. The applicants denied the facts and pointed out that there were many cars and people in the area who could have thrown the rubbish. The police agents told them that the complaint identified a group of Roma as the wrongdoers. The applicants denied again and retorted that several other Roma groups had been present in the area. Meanwhile, four agents of the Oradea county police arrived. As the applicants refused to sign the offence report ( procesul verbal de contravenţie ), the police agents threatened and then physically and verbally aggressed them. The first applicant tried to film the scene with his mobile phone. When the police agents noticed him, they dragged him out of the car, hit him while handcuffing him and then took him to the police station where they forced him to sign the offence report. He was not allowed to read the report beforehand. On 20 May 2009 the first applicant was examined by a forensic doctor who established that the injuries suffered needed five to six days of medical care. On 1 April 2010 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the police agents. The prosecutor’s office attached to Oradea District Court was responsible for supervising the investigations. Evidence was heard from the applicants, the police agents and a witness who, according to the applicants, had not been present when the aggression had occurred. The statements made by the applicants’ family members who had been present at the events had been ignored by the prosecutor, on the grounds that they had been biased and contradicted the police agents’ description of the events. As the applicants were not often present at their home address, they chose as address for the purpose of the criminal proceedings that of their lawyer and informed the authorities of that matter. After lodging their criminal complaint, the applicants did not receive information on the course of the investigations. Their lawyer filed several requests for information with the prosecutor’s office (on 11 May, 12   July and 3   November 2011 and 6 November 2012). On 19 May 2011 he received an answer sent to his address. On 12 November 2012 the lawyer was informed that on 10 November 2011 the prosecutor had decided not to start criminal investigations in the case and that he had sent that decision to the applicants’ home address on 23   November 2011. On 29 November 2012 the applicants complained with the prosecutor ‑ in ‑ chief against the previous decision. On 10 December 2012 the prosecutor ‑ in-chief dismissed their appeal as out of time. He considered that they should have lodged their complaint within 20 days from the date when the decision was sent to the applicants’ home. He sent his decision to the lawyer’s address on 19 December 2012. The applicants appealed. On 8 March 2013 the Oradea District Court upheld the prosecutors’ decisions in the matter and considered the applicants’ complaint as being out of time. Consequently it refused to examine the merits of the complaint. B.     Relevant domestic law According to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it was applicable at the date when the facts in the present case occurred (“the CCP”), he procedural acts are notified at the address indicated by the interested party. Under Article 246 of the CCP, the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute is notified to the person having lodged the criminal complaint, to the accused and to any other interested party. In twenty days after communication of the decision the interested party may object to the decision and the objection will be examined by the hierarchically superior prosecutor (Article 278 of the CCP). If the objection is dismissed, the interested party has twenty days from the communication of that decision to lodge a complaint with the courts (Article 278 1 of the CCP). Under the provisions of the Criminal Code at that time, the prosecution was time-barred three to five years after the commission of the alleged crime (Article 122 of the Code). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment was superficial. They further argue that as the criminal proceedings against the police agents were not conducted properly, they were left without any means to seek justice for the violation of their rights. Lastly, they contend that the only reason why they were approached and subsequently aggressed by the police agents was that they are Roma. Furthermore, the police agents’ discriminatory attitude was condoned by the court which denied them any effective means to seek redress. They rely on Articles 5 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their Roma origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?   Appendix   No. First name LAST NAME Birth year Nationality   Ioan CIOBAN 1975 Romanian   Augustin CIOBAN 1979 Romanian   Constantin CIOBAN 1983 Romanian