CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 mars 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 205 March 2017 V.K. v. Russia - 68059/13 Judgment 7.3.2017 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Ill-treatment of four-year-old boy by teachers in nursery school: violation Facts – The applicant alleged that, at the age of four, he had been ill-treated by teachers when attending nursery school. On several occasions he had been locked in the dark in the toilets and told that he would be eaten by rats, been forced to stand in the lobby in his underwear and with his arms up for prolonged periods and on one occasion had had his mouth and hands taped with sellotape. Eye drops had been administered by force without consent or a prescription. He was told that if he complained to his parents he would be subjected to further punishment. In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained, inter alia , that he had been ill-treated by teachers of a public nursery school and that the investigation into his allegations of ill treatment had been ineffective. Law – Article   3 ( substantive aspect ): The Court found it established to the requisite standard of proof that the nursery school staff had subjected the applicant to the treatment complained of. Given the applicant’s extremely young age at the time, the fact that the treatment had continued for several weeks and that many years afterwards he continued to suffer a form of post-traumatic neurological disorder, and given also that the acts were perpetrated by teachers in a position of authority and control, the cumulative effect of the acts of abuse had rendered the treatment sufficiently serious to be considered inhuman and degrading within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention. As to whether the State bore responsibility for the ill-treatment, a public or municipal nursery school provided a public service and had very strong institutional and economic links with the State, and its educational and economic independence was considerably limited by State regulation and regular State inspection. Under Russian law a nursery school’s liability, and through it the State’s liability, was engaged by the acts or omissions of teachers committed while performing their functions. These factors were sufficient to find that, while performing their functions, teachers of public or municipal nursery schools could be regarded as State agents. The applicant had been ill-treated while in the exclusive custody of a public nursery school which, under State supervision, fulfilled the public service of caring for and educating young children in the spirit of respect and protecting their health and well-being. He was ill-treated during school hours by teachers while fulfilling their duty of care for him. The impugned acts were connected to their role as teachers. Consequently, the State bore direct responsibility for the wrongful acts. The State was thus responsible under Article   3 on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment to which the applicant had been subjected. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of the procedural aspect of Article   3 as delays in the domestic investigation had led to the prosecution of the teachers concerned becoming time-barred. Article 41: EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 3,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes