CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 décembre 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   935 20.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (application no. 7888/03).   The Court held unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the death of Atanas Velichkov Nikolov; and, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the inadequacy of the criminal proceedings against the police officers responsible for his death.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 7,000   euros   (EUR) to Ms Nikolova in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   10,000, each, to Ms Nikolova and Ms   Velichkova in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Krastinka Nikolova and Violeta Velichkova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1939 and 1960, respectively, and live in Shumen (Bulgaria). They are the widow and daughter of Atanas Nikolov.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that Mr Nikolov died, aged 62, as a result of ill-treatment by two police officers and that the ensuing criminal proceedings were inadequate.   On 27 September 1994 the Shumen Regional Police Department’s rapid-response force were on a training exercise. They were not in uniform. The leader of the team spotted Mr   Nikolov testing a home-made metal detector and sent police officers to investigate. Chief Sergeants B.I. and H.T. approached Mr Nikolov who, surprised by their sudden appearance, raised the hoe he was holding in defence. Chief sergeant B.I. pulled the hoe out of Mr Nikolov’s hands and threw it to a safe distance. Both officers then hit Mr Nikolov over the head, overpowered and handcuffed him. He was taken to Shumen Police Station where, while waiting to be questioned, he fainted. Mr Nikolov was taken to hospital and, following an unsuccessful operation to remove a blood clot, he died on 1   October 1994. A subsequent medical report concluded that the cause of death was severe cranial and cerebral trauma and internal brain haemorrhaging.   On 2 October 1994 criminal proceedings were opened into the incident by Shumen Regional Investigation Service. Chief Sergeants B.I. and H.T. were charged, witnesses were interviewed and a number of expert reports were drawn up. The investigator in charge concluded in May 1995 that the officers should be committed to trial.   Following an amendment in June 1995 to the Code of Criminal Procedure which gave military courts jurisdiction to try police officers, the case was transferred to Varna Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office. As a result of the applicants’ repeated complaints, the proceedings were resumed in January 1998 and, in the autumn of 1999, the chief sergeants were brought to trial. In a judgment of 3 December 1999 Varna Military Court convicted the chief sergeants of having caused the death of Mr Nikolov through intentional grievous bodily harm, in violation of Article 124 § 1 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced them to a three-year suspended prison sentence. Ms Nikolov and Ms   Velichkova were awarded compensation, to be paid by the Chief Sergeants. In that judgment the Military Court noted that, although the chief sergeants had not intended to kill Mr Nikolov, they could have envisaged the seriousness of the consequences of the blows to Mr   Nikolov’s head. Furthermore, as members of the rapid response force, they had special training in restraining and arresting offenders.   On appeal the applicants complained that the chief sergeants’ sentencing was too lenient and the compensation too low. In December 2000 the Military Appellate Court found that the “situation [had] not call[ed] for the use of such intense physical violence” but upheld the suspended sentence. The compensation awarded to each applicant was, however, increased. Ultimately, in January 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.   The enforcement proceedings with respect to the compensation owed to the applicants were discontinued at the end of 2004 as the chief sergeants had no assets to be seized.   Following a tort action brought by the applicants, in June 2004 Shumen District Court ordered Shumen Regional Police Department to pay compensation. Those amounts were paid shortly after the end of the proceedings in March 2005.   No disciplinary measures have ever been taken against Chief Sergeants B.I. or H.T..   Chief Sergeant B.I. was promoted to unit commander in the Shumen riot police in 1998 but has since resigned from the police force. In 1999 Chief Sergeant B.I. was apparently still working for the police force as a guard in a commercial bank.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 February 2003 and declared admissible on 13 March 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying, in particular, on Article 2 and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained that Mr Nikolov had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police and that the ensuing criminal proceedings had been inadequate.   Decision of the Court   The Court found that, even though the applicants had received compensation for Mr   Nikolov’s death, the measures taken by the authorities had failed to provide appropriate redress and they could therefore still claim to be victims for the purposes of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Article 2   Concerning the death of Mr Nikolov   The Court noted that the Bulgarian criminal courts had examined the evidence and facts of the applicants’ case and found that Chief Sergeants B.I. and H.T, acting in their official capacity, had intentionally hit Mr Nikolov and been responsible for his death. Moreover, the courts found that the incident on 27 September 1994 had not required “such intense physical violence”. The Court therefore concluded that the death of Mr Nikolov was attributable to Bulgaria and that the force used for carrying out his arrest had not been “absolutely necessary”, in violation of Article 2.   Concerning the criminal proceedings   The Court considered the promptness of the criminal proceedings as a gauge for assessing the authorities’ determination to prosecute those responsible for Mr Nikolov’s death. An investigation had immediately been opened into Mr Nikolov’s death and had, at first, progressed at a good pace. However, after June 1995, when the case had been transferred to the military prosecution authorities, the proceedings had ground to a halt and had not been resumed until two-and-a-half years later and only after the applicants’ repeated complaints. The chief sergeants had finally been convicted and sentenced in 2002, more than seven years after having killed Mr Nikolov. The court considered those delays to be unacceptable as the case had involved police violence and required a swift reaction from the authorities.   The Court could not overlook the fact that, even though the Bulgarian Criminal Code of 1968 had given the domestic courts the possibility of sentencing the Chief Sergeants to a maximum of 12 years’ imprisonment, they had chosen the minimum penalty and suspended it. Indeed, at least until 1999, well after the beginning of the criminal proceedings, both officers had still been serving in the police. One of them had even been promoted. In the Court’s view, such a reaction to a serious case of deliberate police ill-treatment resulting in death could not be considered adequate.   By punishing Chief Sergeants B.I. and H.T with suspended terms of imprisonment, more than seven years after Mr Nikolov was killed, and never disciplining them, Bulgaria had in effect supported the officers’ feeling that they were not responsible. The Court therefore found that the criminal proceedings against the police officers responsible for Mr Nikolov’s death had been inadequate and held that there had been a further violation of Article 2.   Article 3   Given the grounds for which it had already found two violations of Article 2, the Court considered that no separate issue arose under 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) 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.