CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   35 16.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PRUNEANU v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Pruneanu v. Moldova (application no. 6888/03).   The Court held: by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police on 10 May 2001; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment on 10 May 2001; by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 3 as regards the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the police on 10-11 July 2002; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment on 10-11 July 2002; and, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court decided, by six votes to one, to award the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ion Pruneanu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1972 and lives in Şipoteni (Moldova).   The first alleged incident of ill-treatment On 10 May 2001 he was arrested by six police officers at his home as he was suspected having stolen of farm animals in his village.   According to the applicant, he was taken to the office of the village police inspector, in the Şipoteni Local Council building, and severely beaten by two of the police officers. He was punched, kicked and beaten with a wooden baton on his body and on his head until he lost consciousness. Later he was taken by car to Călăraşi police station where he was handcuffed to a radiator. After regaining consciousness he managed to open the handcuffs and escape.   The Government contested the applicant’s version of events, submitting that his injuries had been sustained when he allegedly jumped from a car travelling at 70-80 km/hour.   Several days later the applicant was admitted to hospital for treatment. A medical report drawn up on 14 May 2001 noted bruises and wounds to his head and face, paralysis of the left side of his face; head trauma and head concussion; perforation of the left tympanic membrane and other injuries to his body. It concluded that the injuries were inflicted by blows with blunt objects which could have been inflicted on 10 May 2001. Hospitalisation was recommended.   The applicant went into hiding but was re-arrested 10 July 2002.   In September 2002 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman’s Office about the alleged ill-treatment and annexed to his complaint a copy of the medical certificate of 14 May 2001. On 8 December 2002 Ungheni County Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint and found that he had resisted arrest and had attempted to run away by jumping from the car.      That judgment was quashed on appeal and a second investigation was ordered by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The applicant’s wife and five of the police officers who had participated in the applicant’s arrest were interviewed. The sixth police officer and the applicant were not interrogated.   All of the police officers declared that the applicant had not been subjected to any form of violence, except at the time of the arrest when his hands had been tied behind his back because he had allegedly resisted arrest. Four of the police officers stated that the applicant had attempted to jump from the car. There were inconsistencies in some of the police officers accounts.   On 25 February 2003 a prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment on the ground that he had sustained his injuries when jumping out of the car and that there was no evidence that he had been ill-treated.   The second alleged incident of ill-treatment On 10 July 2002 the applicant together with an accomplice entered an apartment situated on the third floor (that is second from ground level) of an apartment building and, using force, stole money from its occupant. After the victim started shouting for help, the applicant and his accomplice attempted to run away by jumping off the balcony. The accomplice was able to escape, but the applicant was caught by the police and taken to the Buiucani Police Station.   According to the applicant, at the police station he was suspended on a metal bar and beaten with a baton on his legs, body and neck.   The Government contested the applicant’s account of the events.   On 11 July 2002 an ambulance was called and, at 2.20 p.m., the applicant was hospitalised at the Emergency Hospital. He could not walk and he was transported on a stretcher. A medical report dated 12 July 2002 stated that he had a head trauma with head concussion, an injured lip, bruises and injuries on his face, chest trauma with a fracture of three ribs, fracture of the tibia of his left foot, contusion of the soft tissues on the back of his neck, contusion of the soft tissues on his knees, fracture of the second finger of his left hand.   He complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about his alleged ill-treatment on 10-11 July 2002 who re-directed his complaint to the Buiucani Prosecutor’s Office. The Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that his injuries had been caused by his jumping from the third floor.   That judgment was subsequently quashed on appeal and the Prosecutor General’s Office ordered a second investigation.   A prosecutor from the Buiucani Prosecutor’s Office interrogated the applicant, two police officers present at his arrest, the victim of the theft committed by the applicant, three of the victim’s neighbours and a paramedic from the ambulance which took the applicant to the hospital on 11 July 2002.   On 2 December 2002 a forensic report drawn up at the request of the prosecutor stated that the applicant’s injuries were inflicted by blows with blunt objects. It added that all the injuries could have been caused as a result of a fall from the third floor, if his body had hit hard objects.   On 1 December 2002 [2] a prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the ground that he had sustained his injuries when jumping from the third floor of an apartment building. The prosecutor relied mainly on the declarations of the police officers that no violence had been inflicted on the applicant during his detention and on the forensic report dated 2 December 2002, which, in his view, confirmed that the applicant’s injuries were caused by the fall.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 December 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints Relying on Articles 3 and 13, he complained about being ill-treated by the police, and that the domestic authorities failed to investigate properly his complaints about the ill-treatment.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The first alleged incident of ill-treatment   The Court was not convinced by the reasons given by the Moldovan Government for the applicant’s injuries and considered that they failed to provide a plausible explanation as to how they were caused.   It noted in the first place that there were no independent witnesses who could confirm that the applicant jumped from the car in which he was being taken to the police station. The findings of fact made by the prosecutors were entirely based on the accounts of the police officers accused of ill-treatment. In that respect the Court also noted that the Moldovan prosecutors accepted without reserve the submissions of the police officers despite contradictions in their statements.   The investigation carried out by the domestic authorities appeared to have had other shortcomings. In particular, not all the occupants of the car were interrogated. The Court noted that the driver of the car was never interrogated during the investigation and no reasons were given for this omission. In addition, the Court found it noteworthy that the applicant himself was never interrogated.   The Court observed that the domestic authorities did not, moreover, appear to have taken into account the nature of the applicant’s injuries, which appeared to be inconsistent with a jump from a speeding car. It appeared from the medical certificate submitted by the parties that the applicant did not suffer a single bruise to his limbs as a result of his jump. However, he suffered eight different injuries to his head.   The Court therefore concluded that the Government did not provide a plausible explanation for the applicant’s injuries and concluded that they were the result of inhuman and degrading treatment while in police custody. Accordingly it found that there has been a violation of Article 3.   Having regard to the deficiencies identified in the investigation, the Court also concluded that the State authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment which also gave rise to a violation of Article 3.   The second alleged incident of ill-treatment It was not disputed that the applicant sustained part of his injuries when jumping or falling from the third floor. What was disputed was whether his jump was the cause of all his injuries. It was an established fact that the applicant jumped or fell from a considerable height just before the police arrived and that he complained of pain in his left leg. He was not, however, examined by a doctor until he was taken to hospital some 13 or 14 hours later.   A medical report dated 12 July 2002, two days after the applicant’s arrest, recorded that he had multiple serious injuries more or less all over his body but it did not indicate the origin of the injuries. The applicant himself alleged that the injuries had resulted from his ill-treatment by the police.   In response to those allegations the Prosecutor’s Office ordered a medical forensic investigation to determine the origin of the injuries.   A report drawn up on 2 December 2002 stated that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted by blows with blunt objects. However, the forensic doctors also acknowledged that the injuries might have been caused by a fall from the third floor, if the applicant’s body had hit hard objects.   The Court further noted that the police failed to have the applicant medically examined in the immediate aftermath of the fall or jump. That failure of the police was amplified by the prosecutor’s failure to interrogate the occupants of the apartment building about the extent to which the applicant appeared to have hurt himself as a result of the fall or jump. Moreover, the Court found it a cause for concern that, while the applicant’s serious injuries were allegedly caused on the night of 10 July 2002, the authorities appear to have formed the view that he needed urgent medical care only the following afternoon.   Given the failure of the police to have the applicant medically examined immediately after his fall or jump, the Court was not able to determine with certainty the manner in which he sustained his injuries. At the same time, the Court could not ignore the undisputed fact that the applicant had jumped from a considerable height. Given that fact, the Court could only conclude that it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of ill-treatment.   The above conclusion, however, did not preclude the Court from finding a violation of Article 3 on the ground that the State authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 The Court noted that the applicant could have claimed compensation if it had been proved that the damage was caused by illegal acts. However, since the criminal investigation concluded that the actions of the police officers had been lawful, any civil action against them would have been ineffective.   The Court therefore concluded that the applicant did not have an effective remedy under domestic law to claim compensation for his ill-treatment as regards events that took place on 10 May 2001 and, accordingly, that there had been a violation of Article 13 as regards the complaints under Article 3.     Judge Pavlovschi expressed a partly dissenting, partly concurring opinion, and judge Bonello expressed a partly dissenting opinion, joined by judges Traja qnd Mijović. These are annexed to the judgment.   ***   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] The date given in the case file. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.