CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 mai 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 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   337 24.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ZELILOF v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Zelilof v. Greece (application no. 17060/03).   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 concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police; and a violation of Article 3 in that the investigation into his ill-treatment was ineffective.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,400   euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Dimitrios Zelilof, is a Greek citizen of Russian-Pontic origin who was born in 1978 and lives in Salonika (Greece).   In the evening of 23 December 2001 the applicant saw police officers doing an identity check on passengers of a car in Ano Toumba, a district of Salonika. The applicant, who knew the passengers, asked what was going on. He was then asked by the police to identify himself.   The parties submitted different accounts of the events which followed.   According to the applicant, as he did not have his identity card with him, he suggested going to the nearby police station in Toumba, where his identity card had been issued. He alleged that one of the police officers then accused him of being “the tough guy” and that Constable Tsiorakis wrapped his handcuffs around his fist, punched him in the mouth and then kicked him in the chest and abdomen.   The Government maintained that the applicant ignored warnings not to approach the car and refused to identify himself.   He then pushed a police officer and hit him in the face and punched and kicked two other officers trying to arrest him. The applicant managed to escape after two other people joined in.   According to the testimony of another police officer, he then fired three warning shots in the air “in a safe way” to intimidate the applicant.   The applicant claimed that he subsequently went to Toumba Police Station to complain about his ill-treatment, where he was handcuffed, beaten and kicked for about 30 minutes by a number of police officers, including those who had carried out the initial road check.   According to the Government, the applicant was arrested later that day, but neither he nor his acquaintances were mistreated by police officers at the police station.   The applicant was transferred by ambulance to Aghios Dimitrios Hospital in Salonika, where he remained until 28 December 2001.   A medical report dated 2 January 2002 noted that the applicant had head and back injuries requiring stitching and slight concussion and bruising. A forensic expert’s medical examination of 29 January 2002 found that the applicant had, among other things, a dislocated jaw and broken tooth and “medium-intensity bodily injury, caused by blunt instruments” from which it would take at least 18-21 days to recover.   According to hospital notes, three police officers had bruising or heavy bruising following the incident. They were admitted to hospital on 23 December 2001 and discharged the next day. Three other police officers were not medically examined by a forensic doctor.   On 8 January 2002 Salonika Police Headquarters ordered an administrative investigation into the circumstances surrounding the three police officers’ injuries and whether they had committed a disciplinary offence. The testimonies of the civilians involved were considered to be subjective while the credibility of the police officers’ statements was assumed. The forensic report of 29 January 2002 was not taken into account. The investigation concluded that the police officers involved had used appropriate physical force, given that they were assaulted by 10 to 15 people and that there was a real danger that their firearms might have been snatched and used against them. The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment at the police station were dismissed.   On 14 January 2005 the applicant was sentenced by Salonika Court of First Instance to 14 months’ imprisonment for resisting lawful authority. The court found that the police had been hindered either physically or verbally by up to 15 of the applicant’s acquaintances. The case is currently pending before the domestic courts.   On 14 January 2002 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers who had allegedly beaten him, which was dismissed as “factually unfounded” on 2 July 2002. Both prosecutors in the judicial proceedings endorsed the conclusions reached in the administrative investigation on the basis of the depositions of the police officers. No witnesses were questioned personally by either prosecutor. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.       2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 May 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicant alleged, in particular, 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, in breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. He further alleged that the events in question had been motivated by racial prejudice, in breach of Article 14.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment The Court observed that it was undisputed that the applicant’s injuries, as shown by the medical reports, were caused by the use of force by the police. Against that background, given the serious nature of the applicant’s injuries, it was for the Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force was not excessive.   The Court noted that the applicant was injured in the course of a random operation which gave rise to unexpected developments. The police officers were therefore required to react without prior preparation. The Court bore in mind the difficulties in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which had to be made in terms of priorities and resources. Furthermore, Salonika Court of First Instance had established that the applicant had physically resisted his arrest and that the three police officers had been assaulted by ten to 15 of the applicant’s acquaintances.   The Court acknowledged that the three police officers must have felt insecure and vulnerable, which could have justified the firing of gunshots to intimidate the applicant’s acquaintances. However, acts of self-defence against his acquaintances could not justify inflicting serious injuries on the applicant, who was not threatening the physical integrity of the police officers. The applicant was hospitalized for five days and was expected to convalesce for 18-21 days, whereas the three police officers were admitted to hospital late on 23 December and discharged the next day.   Concerning the applicant’s allegations, which were corroborated by the medical reports, and the circumstances in which he sustained those injuries, the Court found that the Government had not explained or justified the degree of force used against the applicant. The State was therefore responsible for the inhuman and degrading treatment to which he was subjected while in the charge of the police, in violation of Article 3.   Having reached that conclusion, and since the Court was not able to establish the relevant facts, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant’s allegations regarding the conduct of the police officers inside Toumba Police Station.   Concerning the investigation The Court observed that there were some discrepancies capable of undermining the reliability and effectiveness of the administrative investigation and a selective and somewhat inconsistent approach to the assessment of evidence by the investigating authority, which omitted to take into account the report of the applicant’s forensic medical examination.   As regards the judicial proceedings, the Court noted, among other things, that the judicial investigation was only launched after the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint. Neither prosecutor questioned personally the eyewitnesses or the applicant and the police officers. Both prosecutors relied heavily on the police officers’ depositions and discredited the eyewitness evidence and the results of the applicant’s forensic examination.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been a further violation of Article 3 in that both investigations into the alleged ill-treatment were ineffective.   Article 13   The Court considered that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 13.   Article 14   The Court considered that, while the police officers’ conduct during the applicant’s arrest called for serious criticism, that behaviour was not of itself a sufficient basis for concluding that the treatment inflicted on the applicant by the police was racially motivated.   Having assessed all relevant elements, the Court did not consider that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that racist attitudes played a role in the applicant’s treatment by the police.   Accordingly, that complaint had to be rejected as manifestly ill-founded   *** 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.