CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 septembre 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 } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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   625 27.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT NIKOLAY DIMITROV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Nikolay Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (application no. 72663/01).   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 inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the investigation undertaken following allegations by the applicant that he had been ill-treated.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 2,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 55 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts The applicant, Nicolay Ivanov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Silistra (Bulgaria).   In January 1996 he borrowed from one M.S. 200,000   Bulgarian levs, the approximate equivalent of EUR 102,000 . As a guarantee of reimbursement he transferred the title to his flat to M.S. by means of a contract of sale signed before a notary. When he failed to pay back the borrowed sum within the time allowed he transferred his flat to M.S.   On 18 August 1997, according to Mr Dimitrov, he met V.S., the brother of M.S., who was accompanied by two friends, and together they went to a bar where they discussed a criminal case in which the applicant was involved as a witness. He left the bar at about 3 a.m. and was attacked shortly after by V.S. and the other two persons. They forced him into a car and drove him out of town. Then, while the others pinned him down, V.S. repeatedly inserted a sharpened stake into his anus. Mr Dimitrov alleged that V.S. had also tried to suffocate him and had forced him to eat grass. Mr Dimitrov’s abductors questioned him about a large sum of money he was due to receive and demanded that he alter his deposition in the criminal proceedings discussed earlier in the evening, threatening to kill him if he did not do so.   Mr Dimitrov was examined on the same day by a forensic medical officer, who noted that he had a number of grazes and bruises on his temples, neck, left shoulder and back, and an anal fissure one and a half centimetres long and four millimetres deep. On the following day he was admitted to the regional hospital where his wound was stitched. He asserted that V.S. had visited him in hospital, accompanied him to his home when he came out, then again threatened to kill him and constantly kept watch on him in the days that followed.   On 19 August 1997 Mr Dimitrov lodged a criminal complaint against V.S. and the other two presumed assailants. In the following month he was arrested himself and charged with tax evasion, but the prosecution service discontinued the proceedings in October 2002, on the ground that the acts he stood accused of did not constitute an offence.   A few weeks after being remanded in custody the applicant withdrew his criminal complaint.   By a decision of 20 April 2000 the Silistra prosecution service discontinued the criminal proceedings. The regional prosecution service upheld that decision on 25 May 2000, observing: “There is nothing in the file to show that the accused committed an offence” and “There is no evidence of threats to or ill-treatment of Nikolay Dimitrov”. The court went on to say that the applicant had “repeatedly changed his statements in the course of the investigation and even withdrawn them after being brought face to face with V.S.”.   Before the criminal proceedings were discontinued the applicant had informed the prosecution service that V.S. was bringing pressure to bear on members of his family and his lawyer, obliging them to persuade him to withdraw his complaint. He further asserted that the deputy head of the regional prosecution service, who was overseeing the investigation, was involved in the tax evasion proceedings against him. The applicant admitted that when he had been brought face to face with V.S. he had retracted his allegations of ill-treatment, but he had subsequently explained to the investigating officer that he had been compelled to do so, as V.S. was threatening to sell his flat.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 January 2001.   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) [2] , judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained of the inefficiency of the investigation undertaken following his allegations of ill-treatment, asserting that the Bulgarian authorities had neglected to question a number of witnesses he had identified and had ignored some of his statements. He relied in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court reiterated that domestic authorities had a duty to provide protection against ill-treatment, which required the setting up of a legislative framework capable of ensuring that individuals were adequately protected against such treatment. They also had a duty to conduct an effective official investigation where a person plausibly claimed to have been a victim of acts contrary to Article 3, whatever the status of the persons accused. The authorities had to take the reasonable measures available to them to obtain evidence concerning the alleged offence, such as witness statements, expert reports and, if necessary, an expert medical report capable of giving a full and precise account of any injuries.   In the present case the Court considered that the treatment alleged by the applicant constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.   It noted that Bulgarian criminal law made the treatment complained of by the applicant a criminal offence and that he could claim compensation for damage. Accordingly, the Court could not criticise the authorities for not setting up an appropriate legislative framework.   As regards the obligation to conduct an effective investigation, it noted that the decisions of the prosecution service and the regional court to discontinue the prosecutions had been grounded on the lack of evidence that the applicant had been the victim of an offence. But those decisions made no mention of the medical certificate produced by the applicant or of the statements of the doctor who had attended him. The authorities had thus relied on the fact that the applicant had withdrawn his complaint, disregarding his later statements and the evidence gathered during the investigation. For example, the Court considered that the Bulgarian authorities had failed to take certain investigative steps which it deemed necessary, including the questioning of several witnesses. In addition, the investigation had been affected by undue delays.   In the Court’s opinion, the inadequacies of the investigation had been too numerous and too serious for it to be regarded as effective. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 8   Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 3, the Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 8.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.