CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22357/20 Stelian-Gabriel GUŞĂ against Romania lodged on 20 May 2020 communicated on 8 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of unlawful detention of the applicant and of police brutality against him while in police custody, as well as the alleged ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention under both its limbs, substantive and procedural, that in the night of 2 to 3 May 2018 he was unlawfully assaulted by several police officers and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment at the police station where he was taken, and that the ensuing criminal investigation into his allegations of abusive behaviour and unlawful detention was superficial and ignored relevant evidence. He alleges in particular that the prosecutor’s decision to terminate the investigation, upheld by a final decision of the pre-trial judge of the Bucharest County Court of 21 November 2019, ignored a forensic medical certificate indicating multiple bruises, abrasions on different areas of his body and requiring 3 ‑ 4   days of medical care and video recordings from the camera installed in the room where he was questioned at the police headquarters. Moreover, a series of photographs in the case file showed numerous rubber stick marks on his back. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty for about two and a half hours (between midnight and around 2:30 a.m. in the night of 2 to 3 May 2018) at the police station before being accompanied by police officers to the Obreja Psychiatric Hospital where he was involuntarily hospitalised for a week. The applicant alleges that he was kept handcuffed at all times, being uncuffed only at the hospital in the presence of the doctor. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by police, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention in the night of 2 to 3   May 2018 (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, 100-01, ECHR   2015, and Vasile Victor Stanciu v. Romania , no. 70040/13, §   35, 9   January 2018)? 2.     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; and Bouyid , cited above, §§ 114-23), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? 3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as he was taken against his will to the police station and then to a psychiatric hospital on the night between 2 and 3 May 2018 (see Creangă v. Romania   [GC], no. 29226/03, §§   84 and 101, 23   February 2012; Hoalgă and Others v. Romania , no. 76672/12, §§   107 ‑ 08, 15   March 2016; Aftanache v. Romania , no. 999/19, §§   81 ‑ 83 and 89-91, 26 May 2020, and M.A. v. Cyprus , no. 41872/10, § 190, ECHR 2013 (extracts))?