CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 mars 2001

.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. 28 March 2001 Pantea v. Romania (dec.) - 33343/96 Decision 6.3.2001 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Ill-treatment during detention on remand: admissible   The applicant, a former public prosecutor, was involved in a serious altercation. Criminal proceedings were instituted against him. In June 1994 he was questioned about the incident by the public prosecutor and in July committed for trial on a charge of attempted homicide. In December 1994 he lodged a criminal complaint against the public prosecutor for, inter alia , wrongful arrest and applied for his immediate release. In the night of 10 to 11 January 1995 he was transferred to a new cell in Oradea prison. He maintains that he was savagely beaten that night by the two prisoners with whom he shared his new cell. Despite his cries for help, the prison warden, S.P., refused to intervene. When he lapsed into semi-consciousness, the deputy director of the prison, V.P., allegedly entered the cell and attached to him underneath his bed with handcuffs. The applicant remained in that position for forty-eight hours. As a result of the assault, the applicant sustained a number of wounds. He was taken to the Oradea Neurological and Psychiatric Hospital where, on examination, the doctor concluded that the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The applicant was moved to Oradea Regional Hospital where X-rays were taken that revealed fractures to his skull, thorax and spine. The prison infirmary concluded that the applicant’s previously diagnosed behavioural problems were responsible for his injuries. In spite of his condition, the applicant was transferred in a prison van to the neuropsychiatric unit of Jilava Prison Hospital, which is more than five hundred kilometres from Oradea. He claims that he was subjected to psychological torture there and was not given any treatment for, among other things, the injuries to his skull. On his return to Oradea Prison, he was readmitted to the infirmary. he complains of the conditions there. In a final judgment of 6 April 1995 the court of appeal ordered his release, quashed all the procedural steps taken by the public prosecutor’s office and returned the case file to the public prosecutor’s office so that the case could be reinvestigated. The applicant was released. He has since spent time in hospital and undergone surgery. As regards the criminal proceedings concerning the ill-treatment he suffered, it would seem that in January 1995 he made a verbal complaint to the prison governor about the ill-treatment inflicted by his fellow prisoners. In July 1995 he lodged a written complaint with the public prosecutor’s office against the warder, S.P., V.P. and the two prisoners. In December 1995 he lodged a complaint with the Oradea military public prosecutor’s office and the civil public prosecutor’s office, as he had received no response to his complaint. On 26 June 1996 a medical examination was ordered. In a medical report of 27 August 1997 it was stated that the applicant had sustained injuries as a result of being hit. In a decision of 20   October 1997 the Oradea military public prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the accusations against the warders were unfounded and that even if the applicant’s fellow prisoners had caused his injuries, that complaint had to be dismissed as being out of time. The applicant challenged that decision before the public prosecutor’s office. The Court has no information regarding the outcome of that challenge. The Government put forward a different version of the facts.   Admissible under Article 3: as regards the preliminary objection raised by the Government (non-exhaustion), it had to be noted that after making an initial oral complaint in January 1995, the applicant repeated his complaints in July 1995 by lodging a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s office. However, the public prosecutor’s office did not order a medical report until a year after the complaint had been lodged and sixteen months after the oral complaint was made. The medical report was not delivered until two years after the events complained of. The complaint had been dismissed on 20 October 1997 on the ground that the part concerning the warders was unfounded and the part concerning the other prisoners out of time. The applicant had lodged an appeal against that decision. The Government had not pointed to any other remedy that would have enabled the applicant to secure the identification and punishment of those responsible. Thus, the applicant had exhausted all the possibilities available under the Romanian penal system and was not required, in the absence of any decision to institute criminal proceedings further to his complaint, also to attempt to obtain compensation by bringing a civil action in damages. The objection had to be dismissed and the complaint declared admissible. Admissible under Article 5 § 1, § 3 and § 4. Admissible under Article 5 § 5: as regards the preliminary objection raised by the Government (non-exhaustion), a private individual could not lodge a constitutional appeal directly with the Constitutional Court. That remedy was not therefore an accessible one for the purposes of Article 35. As for an action for compensation under Article 504 of the Criminal Code, Article 505 laid down that claimants could lodge an application for compensation within one year after a final acquittal or an order discharging the proceedings. However, the applicant had not been acquitted and no discharge order had been made. Furthermore, the Government had not pointed to any authority from the case-law of the national courts supporting their argument. Consequently, the objection had to be dismissed and the complaint declared admissible. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 and § 3 and Article 8.   © 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