CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 avril 2006

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 85 April 2006 Jasar v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.) - 69908/01 Decision 11.4.2006 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Alleged police brutality and failure to conduct an effective investigation: admissible   Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Criminal complaint alleging police brutality still pending and civil claim for damages dismissed: preliminary objection dismissed   In 1998 the applicant, of Roma ethnic origin, was in a local gambling bar. One of the losing gamblers complained that the dice had been loaded and fired several gunshots. Several police officers came to restore the peace. It is in dispute whether the applicant also took part in the disturbance or just watched it unfold. Police officers allegedly grabbed him by his hair and forcibly put him in a police van. He was allegedly kicked in the head as well as punched and beaten with a truncheon by a police officer while in custody. A medical report concluded that the applicant had sustained “light bodily injury” in the form of numerous injuries to his head, hand and back. The applicant filed a criminal complaint against an unidentified police officer. After two inquiries, the public prosecutor notified him that he had officially requested the Ministry of the Interior to make additional inquiries. There is no indication of any further steps having been taken as regards the applicant’s complaint of alleged ill-treatment. The applicant also brought civil proceedings against the State but his claim for damages was dismissed as ill-founded for want of sufficient evidence showing that his injuries had been inflicted as a result of police brutality. His appeal was unsuccessful. Before the European Court the applicant complains that he was subjected to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, in violation of Articles 3 and 13, the authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible for his treatment. Admissible as a whole: for the purpose of exhausting domestic remedies within the meaning of Article   35(1) of the Convention, the applicant made a criminal complaint to the public prosecutor, initiating a procedure capable of leading to the identification and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators of the assaults. As the public prosecutor did not formally reject the applicant’s criminal complaint, the applicant could not take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor. Moreover, criminal proceedings could not be instituted where the perpetrator was unknown, as was the case here. In addition, the applicant also brought a civil action to obtain damages for the injury and suffering caused. He therefore brought the alleged police brutality to the attention of the authorities, placing them under a duty to carry out an appropriate investigation, and instituted a court procedure able to establish the facts, attribute responsibility and award monetary redress. Furthermore, although the application to the European Court was submitted more than six months after the court of appeal had dismissed his compensation claim with final effect, the Court was not persuaded by the Government’s argument that, for the purposes of Article   35(1), the six-month period should be calculated from the final decision in the civil proceedings. The proceedings before the public prosecutor are still pending as the latter has not dismissed the complaint and the investigation does not appear to have produced any tangible results.   © 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