CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juin 2012

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s504DB88A { font-family:Arial; color:#999999 } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF2965512 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; 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. 153 June 2012 Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 9035/06 Decision 19.6.2012 [Section IV] Article 34 Victim Non-transferability, in absence of moral interest in outcome of proceedings or other compelling reason, of strictly personal rights under Article 3: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant’s father was allegedly ill-treated at the hands of the police in 1997. In subsequent criminal proceedings, the domestic courts concluded that he had resisted arrest and that the use of physical force had been justified. The applicant’s father died in 2000 and the applicant intervened in a pending civil action in damages his late father had instituted against the State and which were ultimately dismissed. Law – Article 34: The applicant complained of ill-treatment of his father at the hands of the authorities and a failure to conduct an effective investigation. Although the Court normally permitted the next-of-kin to pursue proceedings before it where the original applicant had died after the introduction of the application, the situation was different when the direct victim died before bringing his or her complaint before the Court. In cases where the alleged violation was not closely linked to disappearance or death, the Court had a more restrictive approach and held that rights under certain Convention provisions were strictly personal and non-transferable. In the applicant’s case there was no causal link between the alleged ill-treatment of his late father and the latter’s death, which had occurred while the domestic criminal and civil proceedings were still pending. However, the focus of both of those sets of proceedings and of the applicant’s Court application had been strictly personal rights under Article   3 of the Convention. The Court did not exclude that it might recognise the transferability of complaints under Article   3 to applicants who complained about treatment concerning a deceased relative. However, such applicants would have to show either a strong moral interest in the outcome of the domestic proceedings, going beyond a mere pecuniary interest, or other compelling reasons such as an important general interest requiring an examination of their case. The applicant had not put forward any such reasons and the domestic proceedings in which he had taken part concerned primarily the issue of compensation. The notion of “victim” under Article   34 of the Convention was an autonomous one and did not depend on rules of domestic law. Furthermore, the applicant had lodged his application many years after the end of the investigation, the effectiveness of which might have been the only issue of general interest in the case. Conclusion : inadmissible (absence of victim status).   © 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