CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juillet 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 99 July 2007 Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria - 55523/00 Judgment 26.7.2007 [Section V] Article 2 Positive obligations Failure to hold effective investigation into racially motivated killing: violation   Article 14 Discrimination Failure by the authorities to hold an effective investigation into a racist killing or to charge the attackers with a racially motivated offence: violation   Facts : The applicants are the mother and brother of a man of Roma origin who was killed in an unprovoked attack by a group of seven teenagers in April 1996. The police made immediate arrests. On questioning the youths, they learnt that the attack had been racially motivated although the intention had been to give the victim a beating, not to kill him. However, one of the group had produced a knife and stabbed the victim, who, according to the autopsy, had died of massive internal bleeding. There was conflicting evidence as to who had wielded the knife. Initially, G.M.G. was singled out by two of the group as the person who had inflicted the knife wounds. He was charged with an aggravated form of murder known as “murder stemming from an act of hooliganism”. Four other members of the group were charged with a form of aggravated hooliganism. A month later the two youths who had accused G.M.G. retracted their statements and alleged that another member of the group, N.B., had in fact carried out the stabbings. In June 1996 he was charged with negligent homicide and the charge against G.M.G. was reduced to one of aggravated hooliganism. The pace of the investigation then slowed with occasional investigative steps continuing until June 2001. Thereafter there were no further developments until March 2005 when the prosecutor’s office dismissed under the statute of limitations the aggravated hooliganism charges against five members of the group who had been juveniles at the time of the attack. It also dismissed the negligent homicide charge against N.B. and remitted the case for further investigation with instructions for G.M.G. to be charged with the murder. A hooliganism charge remained in relation to another of the accused, who was an adult at the time of the attack. In April 2005 the applicants and the victim’s three sisters filed a request to be joined as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings. The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to carry out a prompt, effective and impartial investigation and that the domestic legislation contained no separate criminal offence or penalty for racially motivated murder or serious bodily injury. They further alleged that the authorities had failed to investigate and prosecute a racially motivated violent offence and that the excessive length of the criminal proceedings had resulted in their being denied access to a court to claim damages. Law : Article   2 – With regard to the length of the proceedings, the Court noted that despite the assailants being identified almost immediately after the attack and the identity of the person who had stabbed the victim being determined with some degree of certainty, no one had been brought to trial over a period of more than 11 years. As a result of the accumulated delays, the proceedings against the majority of the attackers had had to be dismissed under the statute of limitations. The Government had failed to provide convincing explanations for the length of the proceedings. While the investigation was still pending against two of the assailants, it was questionable whether they would ever be brought to trial or convicted. The authorities had thus failed in their obligation to effectively investigate the death promptly, expeditiously and with the required vigour, considering the racial motives of the attack. As to the allegation that the Bulgarian legal system did not afford protection against racially-motivated offences, the Court observed that the authorities had charged the assailants with aggravated offences, which despite not making any direct reference to racist motives nevertheless carried heavier sentences than those envisaged under the domestic racial-hatred legislation. The domestic legislation and lack of increased penalties for racist murder or serious bodily injury had not, therefore, hampered the authorities from conducting an effective investigation. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   14 (in conjunction with Article   2) – The racist motives behind the attack had been known to the authorities since a very early stage of the investigation. Their failure to complete the preliminary investigation and bring the culprits to trial expeditiously was, therefore, completely unacceptable. They had also failed to charge the assailants with any racially-motivated offence, despite widespread prejudice and violence against Roma. They had thus failed to make the required distinction between offences that were racially motivated and those that were not. This constituted unjustified treatment that was irreconcilable with Article   14. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   6 § 1 – While it was true that, had the applicants brought a civil claim against the youths, the competent civil court would in all likelihood have stayed the proceedings because of the criminal nature of the acts, it would not have been bound by any refusal to act or delay on the part of the prosecuting authorities. Accordingly, it was pure speculation to consider that any civil proceedings would have remained stayed for any length of time: manifestly ill-founded . Conclusion : inadmissible (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 15,000 jointly in respect of non-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