CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 décembre 2016

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 202 December 2016 Ioan Pop and Others v. Romania - 52924/09 Judgment 6.12.2016 [Section IV] Article 3 Degrading treatment Positive obligations Failure to ensure twelve-year old child was looked after by an adult while his parents were held in police custody: violation Facts – The first two applicants were the parents of the third. They were evicted by a judgment of November 2006, due to be enforced on 4   July 2007. On that day the first applicant strongly resisted the eviction but it went ahead. The first and second applicants were taken to the police station, while the third applicant allegedly remained alone for several hours without adult supervision. Law – Article   3 ( substantive head ): On the day of the eviction, the third applicant, aged 12, had been left alone for several hours without being entrusted to the care of an adult. He had witnessed a police operation during which his father had been injected with a tranquiliser to restrain him and then handcuffed and both parents had been taken to the police station. His vulnerability should have been taken into account by the authorities. The police intervention had been prepared in advance and the presence of the third applicant at the scene had not been a surprise for the authorities, but no measure concerning the boy had been envisaged. Law no.   272/2004 provided for a series of special protection measures for a child who found himself, temporarily or permanently, deprived of the supervision of his parents. While placement in an institution would have been unreasonable and disproportionate, the Government had not established with certainty that the authorities had actually considered entrusting the third applicant to the care of a private person whom he knew and who could have looked after him in his parents’ absence. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that the authorities had made any effort to explain to the third applicant the reasons why the police had intervened and taken his parents to the police station, or what awaited them in the official proceedings. The authorities could not have been unaware of the psychological impact of the incident on the child, who had since been suffering from emotional disorders and had developed a stammer. Strong feelings of fear, anxiety and powerlessness capable of degrading individuals in their own eyes and in those of their relatives could be regarded as treatment in breach of Article   3. The fact that the presence of the first applicant during the incident was also the responsibility of the first applicant, who had allegedly encouraged him or even used him as an accomplice, could not remove the obligation for the authorities to protect the child and to intervene to limit any risk of abuse. Since the national authorities had not taken any measures to entrust the third applicant to an adult while his parents were at the police station or to explain to him his situation or that of his parents, the threshold of severity under Article   3 of the Convention had been attained, and the lack of appropriate measures amounted to degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). The Court also found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant, because her deprivation of liberty in July 2007 had no legal basis in domestic law. Article 41: EUR 4,500 awarded to the second and third applicants for non-pecuniary damage. (See also Z and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], 29392/95 , 10   May 2001)   © 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