CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 février 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   99 23.2.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TZEKOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Tzekov v. Bulgaria (application no. 45500/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, in respect of the injury inflicted on the applicant; and, a violation of Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 7,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Tzeko Asenov Tzekov, is a Bulgarian national of Roma origin who is 29 years old and lives in Vidin (Bulgaria).   During the night of 26 to 27 August 1996, around 4.50 a.m., the applicant and one of his friends were travelling on the Vidin ring road in a horse-drawn cart filled with maize which they had just stolen. They passed a police patrol, which found the sight of a cart at such a late hour suspicious and decided to carry out an identity check. Accordingly, one of the police officers signalled to the applicant and his friend to stop.   Faced with a refusal to obey, the police officers chased the cart along a dirt road through the fields. Since the state of the road prevented them from overtaking the cart, the police officers warned its occupants that they were about to open fire. In this connection, the police officers alleged that they had fired warning shots into the air, a claim that was challenged by the applicant.   Since the cart did not stop, a few moments later one of the police officers fired four shots, using special ammunition named “stop cartridges”. He claimed to have aimed at the cart’s tyres, but his shots hit the applicant, who was injured in the back.   The applicant was arrested by the police officers and taken to hospital, where a doctor found that he had an oval-shaped bullet wound in the back, together with a broken rib which was not life-threatening. The applicant, who had to undergo surgery in order to have a shattered piece of plastic and several pieces of lead removed from his wound, left hospital on 4   September 1996.   No criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and his friend. However, an investigation was immediately opened by the Pleven regional military prosecutor’s office, which had jurisdiction over the police officers concerned. This investigation resulted in a finding that there was no case to answer.     At the same time, the applicant brought a civil action for damages arising out of the police officers’ activities, which he claimed had been unlawful. The first-instance and appeal courts dismissed his request on the ground that the firearm had used in conformity with section 42 of the National Police Act. On 23 February 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26   September 1998. It was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 9 September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant submitted that he had been the victim of a bullet wound which had endangered his life and had not been the result of a use of force that was “absolutely necessary”. He also complained about deficiencies in the investigation of the incident.     Decision of the Court   Article 2   The Court noted that the applicant had been wounded during his arrest by a bullet fired by a police officer, but that that wound had not been life-threatening. It also noted that, of the five or six bullets fired, only one had hit the applicant and that special cartridges had been used, which were clearly intended for operations in which the police maintained order and contained plastic bullets that were allegedly non-fatal, even if they could be potentially life-threatening at short distances.   In those circumstances, the Court was not persuaded that the force used by the police officers had been of such a nature or degree as to infringe the rights protected under Article   2.     Accordingly, it concluded that there had been no violation of Article 2 on account of the injury sustained by the applicant, and considered that it was not necessary to examine whether the authorities had failed in their obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life or to conduct an effective investigation into the use of force in the case.     Article 3   As to the applicant’s injuries At the outset, the Court noted with concern that the National Police Act provided for the use of a firearm by police officers in order to arrest an individual, regardless of the seriousness of the offence which the person concerned was supposed to have committed or the threat that he or she represented. By virtue of that Act, members of the security forces could therefore deem it legitimate to shoot any fugitive who did not stop after a warning. A simple warning was apparently sufficient for the courts to find that the use of firearms had been employed as a “last resort”.   Furthermore, at the relevant time Bulgarian legislation did not regulate situations in which damage was necessary in order to enable a lawful arrest to take place.   The Court therefore considered that the legal framework governing the use of firearms by the police force in Bulgaria at the relevant time was basically insufficient to protect individuals from unjustified infringements of their physical integrity. Bulgaria had therefore failed, in general, to comply with the positive obligations arising under Article 3 to prevent such infringements.     As to whether the force employed in the present case could be considered necessary and proportionate, the Court noted that it had never been alleged that the police officers had grounds for believing that the individuals they were seeking to arrest had committed violent crimes, were dangerous or that, should they not be arrested, damaging and irreversible consequences would follow. Accordingly, the Court considered that the use of a firearm in those circumstances could not be justified under Article 3. In addition, the evidence provided grounds for believing that the police could have attempted to arrest the suspects without using a firearm.   Consequently, in addition to the insufficient nature of the legal and administrative framework for the protection of individuals’ physical integrity, the Court found that, in arresting the applicant, the police had resorted to a use of force which had not been strictly necessary and proportionate. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 in this respect.   As to the investigation conducted into the incident Although the authorities had not been completely impassive, the investigation conducted in this case had not been thorough and effective. In both the criminal investigation and the civil proceedings, the authorities had merely assessed whether the use of force had been lawful in the light of the legislation in force. In addition, certain apparently essential investigatory measures had not been carried out. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had also been a violation of Article 3 in that respect.     ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.