CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 février 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   122 22.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT WIESER v. AUSTRIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Wieser v. Austria (application no. 2293/03).   The Court held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the applicant having been strip-searched.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, and by four votes to three, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,012.64 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ewald Wieser, is an Austrian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dornbirn (Austria).   Following accusations by Mr Wieser’s wife, a warrant was issued on 9 February 1998 to search his house and arrest him on suspicion of having assaulted and raped his wife and threatened her with a firearm, of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter and possessing child pornography videos.   On that same day at 11.45 p.m., six masked and armed members of a special police task force forcibly entered Mr Wieser’s home. Just beforehand, the applicant admitted, having observed two suspicious-looking people lingering around his parking space, to having armed himself with a kitchen knife, which he immediately dropped on the police entering his house and held up his hands. The police officers then forced the applicant to the ground and handcuffed him. After that he was laid on a table where he was stripped naked, searched for arms, dressed again, then forced to the ground where he remained for some 15 minutes, with a police officer’s knee against the back of his neck, while other police officers searched his house. During that time he alleged that he was blindfolded and, having urinated in his clothes from the shock of his arrest, was not allowed to change despite repeated requests to the police officers, who also threatened him with being “bumped off”. The applicant further claimed to have been handcuffed at all times, despite remaining calm and cooperative throughout the arrest and ensuing detention.   Following questioning until about 3.40 a.m. at Altach Police Station, the applicant was released and taken back home.   The criminal proceedings against Mr Wieser were later discontinued.   On 3 March 1998 the applicant complained to the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel about his treatment at the hands of the police, referring notably to the strip search, being forced to the ground with a police officer’s knee against the back of his neck, the police officers’ threats and their refusal to let him change his wet clothes.   As a result two hearings were held in July 1998 in which two police officers, who had participated in the applicant’s arrest, confirmed that Mr Wieser had been informed of his arrest and of the search warrant before being strip-searched but denied the allegations relating to the applicant being held down with a police officer’s knee in his neck or threats to “bump him off”. The police officers also explained that the applicant’s wife had informed them of her husband’s violent behaviour, that he regularly drank alcohol, possessed a fire-arm, had attended hand-to-hand combat classes for several years and that, on entering their house, she had been welcomed on several occasions by her husband with a weapon in his hand.   Ultimately, the Administrative Panel dismissed all of the applicant’s complaints except for one, finding that the refusal to let him change his wet clothes did amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and awarded Mr Wieser EUR   2,400 in compensation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 July 2001 and declared admissible on 11 April 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), 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]   Complaint   Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the treatment he underwent when arrested and detained was inhuman and degrading.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed that, within the context of the serious allegations against Mr Wieser and the fact that he was believed to be armed and dangerous, the intervention of six specially equipped, masked police officers did not raise an issue under Article   3.   In the light of those circumstances, the Court also found that the applicant’s handcuffing throughout his arrest which lasted about four hours and which did not entail being on public view, had not caused any physical injury or long-term effect on the applicant’s mental state, and therefore did not attain the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 to apply.   The Court further observed that it could not examine Mr Wieser’s complaint concerning the threat of “being bumped off” and being forced to the ground with a police officer’s knee against the back of his neck because it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt whether it had actually taken place, it being disputed by the police officers during the domestic proceedings and not conclusively established by the domestic courts or the Government.   As concerned the strip search, the Court noted that Mr Wieser had been particularly defenseless when undressed by the police officers. The Court found that that procedure had been invasive and potentially debasing and should not have been used without a compelling reason. However, the Court found that the strip search had neither been proved necessary nor justified for security reasons, noting, in particular, that Mr Wieser, who had already been handcuffed, had been searched for arms and not for drugs or other small objects.   The Court therefore considered that, in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, the strip search of the applicant during the police intervention at his home had constituted unjustified treatment of sufficient severity to be characterised as “degrading” and accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   ***   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 Convention, 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.