CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 novembre 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 } .sA88F4219 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   654 2.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MATKO v. SLOVENIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Matko v. Slovenia (application no. 43393/98).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s allegations that he was ill-treated by the police; a violation of Article 3   of the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations; no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) as regards the length of the criminal proceedings. . Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksander Matko, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Slovenj Gradec (Slovenia).   On 5 April 1995 at about 8.30 pm the applicant was stopped in his car in Slovenj Gradec by police officers from the Slovenj Gradec Police and the Special Unit who were investigating the activities of a criminal group who were thought to be operating in the area.   The parties submitted different versions of the events which followed. The Government maintained that the applicant was speeding and, when stopped, that he attempted to assault one of the police officers.   According to the applicant, approximately 15 armed officers arrived at the scene some of whom approached the car. They then dragged him out of the car, pulled him to the ground, tied him up, and dragged him by his legs to a dark area where they beat and kicked him for some 15 minutes. During the 30 minute drive to the police station, two officers threatened to kill him. He was released shortly after midnight.   He was then admitted to Slovenj Gradec General Hospital where it was noted that he had bruises on his head. The next day a doctor at Maribor General Hospital drew up a more detailed medical report which indicated several injuries including lesions, bruises and haematomas mostly on his head, left shoulder and thigh. An X-ray revealed that he had a hairline fracture of the right temporal bone.   On 15 May 1995 the applicant lodged a written criminal complaint with Slovenj Gradec Police stating that unidentified police officers had caused him bodily harm and had unlawfully deprived him of his liberty.   On 14 July 1995 Slovenj Gradec District Public Prosecutor asked Slovenj Gradec Police to identify the officers who had participated in the applicant’s arrest and to interview them. Subsequently, two reports concerning the relevant police operation were submitted to the Public Prosecutor: one by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), which was responsible for the Special Unit, and one by the Slovenj Gradec Police. The reports maintained that the applicant had been stopped for speeding and had then resisted arrest.   On 17 January 1997 the Public Prosecutor dismissed the applicant's criminal complaint.   On the same day the Public Prosecutor requested Slovenj Gradec District Court to open a criminal investigation into the Slovenj Gradec Police’s complaint against the applicant for the criminal offence of “obstructing an official in the course of his duties”. The request was based on the reports of the MIA and the Slovenj Gradec Police.   In an interview with the investing judge, the applicant denied having committed any offence and complained that he had been beaten and ill-treated by the police. He referred to his medical reports and the judge added them to the case-file.   On 22 November 1999 the court acquitted the applicant. The court found that it had not been proven that the applicant had physically resisted the officers since none of the Special Unit's officers who had had physical contact with the applicant had been identified and there were no documents describing the conduct of the applicant after he had been stopped. That judgment was however quashed on appeal and the case remitted to a new panel for retrial.   On 12 February 2001 the district court convicted the applicant of attempting to obstruct an official in the course of his duties and gave him a three months' suspended sentence. In its judgment the court stated that the employees of the Special Unit had not been questioned, in order to protect their identities.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 July 1998.   It was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 8 July 2004.     Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   John Hedigan (Irish), President , Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Isabelle Berro-Lefevre (Monegasque), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicant alleged that he was unlawfully arrested and severely ill-treated by the police. He also claimed that his allegations of ill-treatment were not properly investigated and that the criminal proceedings had been unfair and excessively long. He relied on Article 3, Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Ill-treatment The Court noted that it was not disputed that the applicant's injuries, as shown by the medical reports, had arisen from the use of force by the police. It also noted that the incident occurred at night in a remote location and that the applicant, who was alone and unarmed, was outnumbered by armed officers.   In view of those circumstances, it found that the onus was on the Slovenian Government to demonstrate that the use of force, which resulted in the applicant's numerous injuries, was not excessive.   However the Government merely referred to two reports produced by the direct superiors of the respective units involved in the incident which stated that the use of force was necessary in order to ensure the applicant’s compliance with police orders.   In the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant contested the charge of obstructing an official in the course of his duties by submitting that he had been ill-treated by the officers. Throughout those proceedings, the statements of the officers, who had used force against the applicant, remained unexamined. No evaluation was made of the extent of the applicant's injuries in view of the different versions of what had occurred during the incident. Slovenj Gradec District Court, on 12 February 2001, nevertheless established that the applicant had physically resisted the officers.   The Court was struck by the argument put forward in the district court’s judgment that the relevant officers were not questioned due to the need to protect their identities as employees of the Special Unit. The Court held that they could still have been questioned and examined by the judge given adequate protection for their security. The Court considered that an examination of the relevant Special Unit officer’s account of events was crucial for the proper establishment of the facts.   Even accepting that the applicant refused to comply with some of the police orders and that the officers were initially authorised to use force, the Court could not see on what basis the domestic authorities satisfied themselves that the force used against the applicant had not been excessive. Nor was it convinced by the Government's explanation, which was based solely on the official version of events.   Consequently, regard being had to the applicant's consistent allegations, corroborated by the medical reports, and to the circumstances in which the applicant sustained the injuries, the Court considered that the Government did not furnish convincing or credible arguments to explain or justify the degree of force used against the applicant. It therefore concluded that the Slovenian State was responsible under Article 3 for the inhuman and degrading treatment to which the applicant was subjected.   Lack of effective investigation The Court noted that the only investigation into the applicant's allegations was carried out by the Slovenj Gradec Police and the MIA, that is, by the very authorities to which the officers who had allegedly inflicted his injuries belonged. As to the thoroughness of that investigation, the Court found no evidence to suggest that any concrete steps had been taken by the police or the MIA to investigate the applicant's allegations. In addition, since the officers conducting the investigation were under the same chain of command as those officers subject to investigation, serious doubts arose as to their ability to carry out an independent investigation.   The Court further observed that the Public Prosecutor, whose ultimate responsibility it was to ensure that an effective investigation was carried out into the applicant's complaints, also lacked the necessary transparency and appearance of independence. In that respect, the Court noted that she based her decision to dismiss the applicant's criminal complaint solely on the reports submitted by the police and the MIA, which lacked information as to the investigative measures taken. Furthermore, there were no indications that she was prepared in any way to scrutinise the police and the MIA's account of the incident.   Moreover, in the proceedings against the applicant, which concerned precisely the same incident, the applicant continued to allege that he had been ill-treated and referred to the medical reports which were also included in the file. On 17 March 1998 the investigating judge, despite the fact that no serious steps had been taken in order to investigate the applicant's allegations, closed his investigation and an indictment was subsequently filed against the applicant.   The Court found it particularly striking that the officers who had used force against the applicant were not even identified let alone questioned during the investigation of the applicant's criminal complaints, nor in the proceedings against him.   Finally, it took over 18 months for the Public Prosecutor to dismiss the criminal complaint, despite the fact that no significant steps had been taken to investigate the circumstances of the incident.   The Court reiterated that, for an investigation to be effective, it had to be capable of leading to the identification and, if appropriate, punishment of those responsible for the crime. The Court however found that the authorities failed to take the necessary measures and that the investigation therefore failed to produce any tangible results. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 5   The Court also held unanimously that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaints concerning the use of force under Article 5 § 1.   Article 6   In view of the overall length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court found that the length of those proceedings, which lasted approximately four years and nine months, did not exceed a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and held, unanimously, therefore that there had been no violation of that Article.   The Court also held unanimously that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings following his criminal complaint under Article 6 § 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts 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)   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. [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.