CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 octobre 2005

.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. 79 October 2005 Mogoş v. Romania - 20420/02 Judgment 13.10.2005 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Alleged ill-treatment and inadequate living conditions in the transit centre of an international airport: no violation   Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Alleged obstacles in correspondence with the Court: no violation   Facts : The applicants, a couple and three of their children, are stateless persons of Romanian origin. In 1990 they left Romania for Germany and in 1993 they gave up their Romanian nationality. In March 2002 the German authorities deported them to Romania. Since then they have been in the transit centre at Bucharest Airport and have refused to enter Romanian territory. On 1 April 2002 police officers accompanied by a number of doctors went to the transit centre to organise the urgent transfer of another stateless person to hospital. The parties differed as to the facts of the ensuing incident. The applicants claimed that the police officers had threatened and assaulted them, whereas the Government alleged that the police officers had been attacked by the applicants. Proceedings were subsequently instituted against the first two applicants but were discontinued. The first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the border police officers, alleging unlawful arrest, wrongful investigation and ill-treatment. The complaint led to an investigation, but those proceedings were also discontinued. The applicants also maintained that the living conditions at the transit centre were “catastrophic”. They additionally claimed that they were suffering from various illnesses and were not being given appropriate medical treatment, an allegation which the Government denied. They further submitted that their correspondence with the Court had been interfered with, in that their mail had been opened and there had been delays in delivering it. Law : Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion): The Court had found in a recent case against Romania that an appeal against a discharge order given by a public prosecutor did not constitute an appropriate and effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention. It could see no reason to depart from that approach in the present case. The objection thus had to be dismissed. Article 3 – Incident of 1 April 2002: The intervention of the police officers at the transit centre was justified by the urgent need to transfer a stateless person to hospital and was therefore legitimate. As to the assaults they had allegedly sustained, the applicants had not supplied any medical certificates to corroborate their allegations and had taken no steps to have any traces of violence recorded. The only evidence they had filed during the investigation was a video recording made after the incident, showing red patches on the first applicant’s back, and the quality of that recording was too poor to remove the uncertainty as to the seriousness of his injuries. Moreover, the criminal investigation into the conduct of the six police officers involved, having established that they had not deliberately used violence against the applicants but had merely attempted to restrain them, led to a finding that there was no case to answer. However, it was clear from all the circumstances and evidence that the applicants had been aggressive and had shown some resistance to the police officers. Setting aside their allegations, it could not be established that they had suffered during the incident acts of violence contrary to Article 3 or that the force used against them by the police officers had been excessive or disproportionate. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Living conditions at the transit centre: The Court noted that the applicants had firmly refused to set foot in Romanian territory or to enter into a legal relationship with the Romanian State, whereas the Romanian authorities had not prevented them from doing so. Moreover, the applicants had not provided the Court with any objective evidence regarding their living conditions. However, there was no reason to disagree with the information which had been supplied by various Romanian bodies or the findings of the CPT, which contradicted the applicants’ allegations. As regards medical care, the applicants had had a number of check-ups and had categorically rejected any hospital treatment. Accordingly, it was not established that the living conditions at the transit centre had been severe enough to entail a violation of Article 3. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 34 – As to the alleged interference with the applicants’ correspondence with the Court, they had not disputed the authenticity of their signatures acknowledging receipt of the registered letters sent from Strasbourg. In addition, no delays in dispatching the mail had been recorded and the dates stamped on it by the Romanian post office indicated that it had always been delivered to the applicants on the actual date of arrival. Regarding the applicants’ alleged “vulnerability”, it was noteworthy that they had been free to leave the transit centre at any time and that their situation was not imputable to the Romanian State. Accordingly, it was not established that the Romanian authorities had interfered with the applicants’ correspondence and Romania had not fallen short of its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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