CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 septembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 463 30.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Krastanov v. Bulgaria (application no. 50222/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the applicant’s ill ‑ treatment by police officers; a violation of Article 3 concerning the Bulgarian authorities failure to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the ill ‑ treatment; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 9,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Svetoslav Dimitrov Krastanov, a teacher, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia.   In March 1995 officers from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Special Anti-Terrorism Squad and the Central Service for Combating Organised Crime raided a cafe in order to arrest a number of suspected criminals who were known to be regular customers. Mr Krastanov was inside the cafe with colleagues at the time.   During the operation, the applicant was hit two or three times on the head with a solid object. The police officers threatened and swore at him, using abusive language. They dragged him outside the café, hit him several times and threw him down on the ground. He was also hit several times in the head with the butt of a gun and received several kicks in the ribs.   After seeing his identity papers, the officers told the applicant that they had mistaken him for someone else and apologised. The applicant lost consciousness and was taken to the neurosurgical ward of the Medical Academy in Sofia where he was found to have a cerebral trauma with an epidural haematoma in his left temporal area, cerebral contusion, polyfragmentary fracture of the left temporal bone, fracture of the ninth rib on the right side of the thorax and a subcutaneous emphysema in the right thoracic half. Six hours after his admission to hospital it was decided that urgent head surgery was needed. He underwent decompressive craniotomy in the left temporal area, evacuation of the epidural haematoma and coagulation of the damaged arteria meningica media at the left side of his head. He remained in hospital until 13 March 1995 and was on sick leave until 27   November 1995.   On 10 September 1998 the competent commission for assessing disability issued a decision stating that the applicant suffered from second degree disability.   On 26 May 1995 the applicant brought proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Central Service for Combating Organised Crime, the Specialised Anti ‑ Terrorism Squad and the Sofia City Directorate of Internal Affairs. He complained that the ill-treatment had been in violation of the relevant rules for the use of force by the police. He claimed 500,000 Bulgarian levs (BGL) in compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage and BGL 100,000 for pecuniary damage. On 4 November 1996 Sofia City Court found that the police officers involved had used unnecessary force and that they had not been provoked in any way by the applicant. The court awarded him BGL 500,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage and BGL   63,064.57 for pecuniary damage. The judgment was upheld on appeal. On 16 July, the applicant received the compensation awarded to him by the courts together with the interest accrued. There was a preliminary inquiry and an internal inquiry within the Ministry of Internal Affairs. However, these investigations did not result in criminal prosecutions against the perpetrators of the beating.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 March 1999 and declared admissible on 4 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained, under Article 3, that he had been attacked and beaten by police officers for no reason and that he did not receive adequate redress. He also complained, under Articles 6 § 1, of the length of proceedings he brought seeking damages and, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that he did not receive adequate compensation for the damage he sustained as a result of the ill-treatment.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court found that the injuries which the applicant sustained established the existence of serious physical pain and suffering and had lasting consequences for his health. The acts of violence against the applicant were committed by police officers in the performance of their duties, although it did not appear that they had intended to, for instance, make him confess to a crime or break his physical and moral resistance. Also, the injuries were caused during a short period of time, in the course of a police operation to arrest suspected offenders, which was apparently accompanied by heightened tension. In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the ill ‑ treatment complained of was sufficiently serious to be considered “inhuman”, but that it could not be qualified as torture.   There had, therefore, been a breach of Article 3 concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment.   Concerning the investigations into the events, the Court noted that they did not result in criminal prosecutions against the perpetrators of the beating.   The proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act, which could only result in the award of compensation but not in the punishment of those responsible for the ill ‑ treatment, could not be considered as satisfying the procedural requirements of Article 3. If the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of intentional police ill ‑ treatment to the mere payment of compensation, while remaining passive concerning the prosecution of those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice.   Against that background, the Court also found that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s arguable claim that he was ill ‑ treated by police officers.   Article 6 § 1   The Court observed that the proceedings lasted four years and one day for two levels of jurisdiction, from 26 May 1995, when the applicant filed his action, until 27 May 1999, when the Sofia Court of Appeals’ judgment became final.   Finding that a delay in the proceedings, between 4 November 1996 and 18   February 1999 – about two years and three months – was attributable to the authorities, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Having regard to its finding in relation to Article 6 § 1, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.