CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 février 2008

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   109 14.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KOBETS v. UKRAINE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kobets v. Ukraine (application no.   16437/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s allegation that he was ill-treated by a police officer; and, a violation of Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksey Viktorovich Kobets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in   1977 and lives in Kyiv.   The case concerned Mr Kobet’s complaints that, following his arrest on account of a fight with a taxi driver, he was ill-treated by a police officer and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations.   On 7 July 2002 at 11 p.m. Mr Kobets and K. had a fight with a taxi driver, B.. Two other passing taxi drivers intervened and another fight ensued. The police arrived on the scene, arrested the applicant and K. and took them to a drug-addiction clinic in Kyiv. A doctor at the clinic examined the applicant in the early hours of 8 July 2002 and noted that he was drunk and had a black eye and scratches on his forehead. The applicant was then taken to Solomyanskyy District Police Station where, according to him, that a police officer beat him with a truncheon for refusing to sign a confession. At 6 p.m. that day, an ambulance was called to the police station because the applicant was complaining of headache and nausea. The ambulance’s doctor noted that the applicant had numerous injuries to his head and concluded that he had concussion. That doctor also noted bruising all over the applicant’s body, particularly on his back, and a statement by the applicant claiming that he had been beaten by taxi drivers. The applicant was released at 9   p.m. and was immediately taken to hospital where he told doctors that he had been beaten by police officers during his arrest. On 9 July 2002 the police were informed of that allegation and that the applicant had been hospitalised. A medical report that same day recorded that the applicant had scratches, bruising and concussion and that he claimed he had been beaten with sticks by people he could not identify. The applicant left hospital on 15 July 2002.   Following an investigation into the incident, on 18 February 2003 Solomyanskyy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to bring criminal proceedings against the police, finding that the applicant’s injuries had been caused during the fight with the taxi drivers. That decision was subsequently quashed and, on 31 October 2003, criminal proceedings were brought against the police for excessive use of power. The case was remitted five times for further investigation before being terminated on 30 July 2005 due to lack of evidence. On 31 May 2006, however, that decision was also quashed and the case was again remitted for further investigation on the grounds that: B. and K. had not been adequately questioned and other taxi drivers not at all; a face-to-face meeting had not been held between the applicant and the accused police officer; and, the conclusions of the latest investigation had been based purely on information already in the case-file. The investigation appears still to be pending.   In August 2003 the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for hooliganism were discontinued.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25   March 2004.   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]   Complaints   Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kobets complained that he was ill-treated by a police officer and that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into his allegations.   Decision of the Court Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment The Court considered that it was not obvious what the applicant’s state of health had been when taken into police custody. Neither was it clear from the parties’ submissions whether the fight between the applicant and the taxi drivers had caused the applicant’s injuries. The first medical report had noted only minor injuries, suggesting that the more serious injuries had occurred later on in police custody. However, it was questionable whether the doctor had recorded the full extent of the applicant’s injuries as his task had essentially been to check whether the applicant had been intoxicated.   More importantly, the applicant had given three different versions to doctors of how he had sustained his injuries and had never said that he had been beaten by police officers in the police station itself. Even after having been released, when the applicant could reasonably have been expected to be less reluctant to give the true version of events, he had told doctors that he had been beaten by police not in the police station but during his arrest and finally that he had been beaten by people he could not identify.   The Court could not therefore conclude “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by a police officer and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Concerning the inadequacy of the investigation The Court noted that the Ukrainian authorities had been aware of the applicant’s complaints from the outset, that is to say when the ambulance’s doctor had informed the police about the applicant’s allegations on 9 July 2002. However, the first decision concerning those allegations had not been taken until seven months later in February 2003. It had also taken more than a year to bring criminal proceedings. Those proceedings lasted for nearly four years and were remitted on numerous occasions for further investigation. The latest decision of May 2006 pointed to inadequacies in the investigation and indicated a number of steps which should be taken. Apparently though, none of the recommendations in that decision had been followed up and the investigation was still pending. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.   Article 13   Given its finding under Article 3, the Court held that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article   13.     ***   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) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.