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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   43 18.01.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RASHID v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Rashid v. Bulgaria (application no. 47905/99).   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, on account of the treatment inflicted on the applicant by police officers during his arrest; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the failure to conduct an effective and adequate investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security); a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Erdjan Hussein Rashid, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kardjali (Bulgaria). He is the owner of a number of gaming establishments and bars in Kardjali.   In the course of an operation against organised crime, police officers stormed into the applicant’s home in the early hours of the morning of 14 April 1997. They broke down the front door and used force to arrest the applicant. The parties disagreed as to the justification for the actions in question.   The applicant, who was treated in hospital that same day, underwent a medical examination on 17 April 1997. The ensuing medical report referred to numerous injuries on the applicant’s body and head: swelling, bruising and abrasions on his left cheek and eye, swelling of the nose, several oval-shaped bruises in the middle and lower part of his back, on his arms (the largest measuring 19 x 9 cm) and on his legs (the largest measuring 21 x 10 cm), and several abrasions on his body (the largest, 14 x 3 cm, being on the left tibia) and a wound (5 cm wide) above his right ankle. The report also stated that the applicant had suffered concussion without loss of consciousness.   In March 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor to the effect that his client had been beaten up by police officers at the time of his arrest. A preliminary investigation was then opened by the military prosecution office in Plovdiv. Interviews were held with the applicant and the public prosecutor who had ordered the search of the applicant’s office, and also with three police officers and various witnesses. In January 2000 the investigator in charge of the case requested the Anti-Terrorist Branch to provide him with the names of the individuals who had participated in the applicant’s arrest. He was informed that, in accordance with section 159(3) of the Interior Ministry Act, the Branch had not kept any information about their identities.   On 7 April 2000 the regional military prosecutor ordered the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings, considering that from the evidence gathered it could not be concluded that the police officers had acted in breach of the law. The military court of appeal upheld that order. The court found that the version of the facts taken into account by the prosecutor was not corroborated by the evidence gathered but that it was impossible to identify those responsible or to charge them, as the Anti-Terrorist Branch had not kept any information about their identities.   In the meantime, on 18 June 1999, the applicant was arrested and charged by a prosecutor with aggravated breach of the peace constituting a repeat offence. By the same decision the applicant was remanded in custody. On 5 July 1999 Kardjali District Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail, which was paid that afternoon and the applicant was released the following day, on 6 July 1999 at 4 p.m.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 February 1999 and declared partly admissible on 13 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), Mark Villiger (Swiss), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2] Complaints The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers during his arrest and that there had been no effective investigation in this connection. In addition, he complained that he had not been brought before a judge or other officer promptly after being detained, and argued that he had been unlawfully kept in detention after payment of bail. Lastly, he contended that the public prosecutor who had remanded him in custody was not a judge within the meaning of Article 5. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the various bruises observed on the applicant’s body appeared too numerous and extensive to be the result of a use of force by the police that had been made strictly necessary by the applicant’s conduct. As there was no evidence to show that the recourse to physical force had been provoked by the applicant’s own conduct, and having regard to the severity of the injuries, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article   3.   Article 13 The Court noted that an investigation had been opened following the applicant’s complaint, but that it had had a number of shortcomings. In that connection the Court further observed, in particular, that the military investigator and the prosecutor’s office had been unable to interview the police officers who had arrested the applicant because of the repeated refusals by the Ministry of the Interior to reveal their identities. Not only had they not been examined as witnesses, but the military tribunal had then ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings on the sole ground that, in the absence of information as to the identity of the persons concerned, the investigation could not lead to the identification and punishment of the guilty parties.   In short, the Court considered that the investigation had not been effective and it held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 5 § 3 The Court found that the prosecutor who had remanded the applicant in custody could not be regarded as sufficiently independent and impartial to meet the Convention requirements, in view of his role as prosecuting authority and his potential involvement as a party to the judicial proceedings. It thus held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 5 § 1 The Court noted that the applicant had been released 23 hours after his lawyers had arrived at his place of detention with the receipt certifying that bail had been paid. The enforcement of the court’s decision had been delayed, first because the person in charge had been absent when the applicant’s lawyers arrived and, secondly, because the following day the applicant had been transferred to the Plovdiv investigation service. In those circumstances, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 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.