CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 avril 2004

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 63 April 2004 Rivas v. France - 59584/00 Judgment 1.4.2004 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Ill-treatment of a minor in police custody: violation Facts : The applicant, a juvenile at the relevant time, had been arrested as part of an investigation into a burglary. During police custody, he was questioned by a police officer inside an office. In circumstances which were disputed, the latter kneed him, resulting in a ruptured testicle which required surgery and causing temporary unfitness for work lasting five days. The Criminal Court convicted the police officer of assault. It was established that the applicant had not hit the police officer at any point; in the court’s opinion, the blow inflicted by the police officer was unnecessary and disproportionate to the applicant’s behaviour. The Court of Appeal overturned the judgment and acquitted the police officer on the ground of self-defence. It considered that the blow inflicted had not been intentional and accepted the police officer’s explanations, which it held to be credible, ruling that the response had been proportionate to the real threat posed to the police officer by the applicant’s attitude at that precise moment: the latter had suddenly risen from a chair to leave the office, turning round with his arm raised ready to strike just as the police officer had grabbed him to prevent his escape. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation. Law : Article 3 – With regard to the proportionality of the physical force used against the detainee by an agent of the State, the Court was not convinced by the Government’s arguments that the police officer had responded reasonably to the applicant’s conduct. The applicant’s alleged escape attempt did not absolve the State of its responsibility. The applicant had been unarmed and in a police station. At the very least, the police officer could have used other methods to make him sit down again. The Court held that the Government had not shown that the use of force against the applicant had been necessary. Having regard to the suffering caused and to the applicant’s age, the treatment inflicted on him had been inhuman and degrading. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award for costs and expenses.   © 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