CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 janvier 2007

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s2E5A65CF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:left } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   45 18.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ALSAYED ALLAHAM v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Alsayed Allaham v. Greece (application no. 25771/03).   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 as regards the ill-treatment of the applicant at the hands of the police.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mhn Ghassan Alsayed Allaham, is a Syrian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Athens. Married to a Greek woman, he has been living and working in Greece since 1986 and holds a valid residence and work permit.   On 8 September 1998, at approximately 7 p.m., the applicant and two other Syrian nationals accompanied a friend to the Ano Patissia police station to report a robbery. Having waited for a long time, the applicant started to complain. He alleged that he was then punched and slapped on his head by a police officer, Mr Georgantzis, while another police officer, Mr   Giannopoulos, held him down. Other police officers to whom he turned for help insulted him and locked him in an empty office for three hours. The applicant alleged that the police officers’ attitude changed when they realised he was legally settled in Greece and they then allowed him to leave. He immediately went to hospital where he was examined by a doctor at around 11 p.m. and given a medical certificate attesting to a scratch of about 3   x 0.5 cm on his left temple and to his left eardrum being perforated.   The applicant currently suffers from hearing loss in both ears and vertigo which have resulted in a significant reduction in his ability to work.   On 9 September 1998 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against Mr Georgantzis, Mr   Giannopoulos and Mr Moukas, Chief of the police station. Following a preliminary inquiry, criminal charges were dropped against Mr   Giannopoulos and Mr Moukas. On 19   February 2002, the first instance court found Mr Georgantzis guilty of serious bodily harm and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment. He was, however, acquitted on appeal on 18   December 2002 on the basis of statements by five eye-witnesses, three of whom were his colleagues, testifying that the accused had not hit the applicant and that the applicant was already hard of hearing before the incident. Accordingly, the medical reports were considered unreliable.   Following the applicant’s appeal to bring the case before the Court of Cassation being dismissed on 24 February 2003, he brought civil proceedings against Mr   Georgantzis, which were also later rejected. The applicant has appealed against that decision and the proceedings are still pending.   In the meantime, disciplinary measures were taken against Mr   Georgantzis and Mr   Giannopoulos, who were both fined after the Chief of the Greek Police found that they had caused bodily harm to the applicant.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 August 2003 and declared partly admissible on 20 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality and that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the incident. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 ( concerning the alleged ill-treatment) The Court recalled that, where a person was in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any injury would give rise to a strong presumption that that person was subjected to ill-treatment.   The Court observed that the Government did not dispute the chronological order of events – namely that the applicant was at the police station from 7 to 11 p.m. on the day of the incident - nor did they dispute the validity of the medical reports. Accordingly, the Government was obliged to give a plausible explanation of how the applicant’s injuries arose.   The Court considered that it was not sufficient for the Government to refer to the acquittal of the accused police officers as a means to discharge itself of the burden of proof. The Court particularly noted that Mr Georgantzis, the only police officer to have been committed to trial, was acquitted solely on the basis of statements by five eye-witnesses, three of whom were his colleagues anyway.   Furthermore, the Court considered that weight should be given to the judgment of 19   February 2002 finding Mr Georgantzis guilty as well as to the acknowledgment by the Chief of the Greek Police that Mr   Georgantzis and Mr Giannopoulos had caused bodily harm to the applicant.   In view of the fact that the applicant was examined by a State doctor just one hour after the alleged incident and that there was nothing in the case file or the parties’ submissions to suggest that the injuries to the applicant had been inflicted either before or just after his stay at the police station, the Court considered that no serious effort had been made to discover what had really occurred nor to prove that the applicant’s injuries were caused other than by the treatment he underwent while he was under the control of the police officers.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the physical harm suffered as well as the fear, anguish and inferiority felt by the applicant, had been sufficiently severe as to categorise the acts of the police as inhuman and degrading. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3. Article 3 (lack of effective investigation ) taken together with the complaint under Article 13 The Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint that there had been a failure to comply with the procedural obligation imposed by Article 3, taken together with the complaint under Article 13.   ***   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.