CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   154 4.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT STOICA v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Stoica v. Romania (application no. 42722/02).   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 applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment by the police; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective investigation; no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); and, a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article   3 .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,278 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Constantin Decebal Stoica, is a Romanian national of Roma origin who was born in 1987. He lives in Gulia, a village in Dolhasca (Romania) which has an 80% Roma population.   The case concerned a clash between officials and Roma outside a bar in Giulia during which the 14-year-old applicant, who had had a brain operation in December 1999, alleged that he was ill-treated by the police.   On 3 April 2001 at around 8   p.m. the Deputy Mayor of Dolhasca, four police officers, their chief and six public guards entered a bar in Gulia to check the owner’s licence. A dispute ensued between the officials and the 20 to 30 Roma gathered in front of the bar.   The applicant submitted that F.L., a villager of Roma origin, was just leaving the bar as the police entered. Sergeant D.T. asked F.L. whether he was a “Gypsy ( ţigan ) or Romanian”. On replying that he was a Gypsy, the Deputy Mayor asked the police officers and the public guards to teach him and the other Roma “a lesson”. The police and public guards started to beat F.L. and other Roma. The applicant, passing by, was tripped up by D.T. who beat, kicked and hit him on the back of his head, despite the applicant’s warning that he had recently had head surgery, until he lost consciousness.   The Government denied that the applicant had been beaten by the police. It claimed that C.C., the owner of the bar, had encouraged antagonism by claiming the Deputy Mayor had won Roma votes by making promises which he had broken once elected. Fearing that the situation was about to degenerate, the officials returned to their cars and left. On leaving, the Deputy Mayor’s car was attacked by villagers with bats.   The applicant was taken to hospital the same evening. A subsequent medical report certified that the applicant had bruises and grazes caused by a blunt instrument and thoracic concussion. On 12 April 2001 he was declared severely disabled.   Following an investigation by the Mayor of Dolhasca, on 18 April 2001 the Prefect excluded the possibility of any racist motivation being behind the incident.   On the same day the applicant’s father lodged a criminal complaint with Bacău Military Prosecutor against the Deputy Mayor and the police officers present during the incident, in particular, D.T..   In its investigation Suceava Police heard evidence from: the applicant, whose allegations were corroborated by his parents and three villagers; and, the Deputy Mayor, two police officers and four passers-by who stated that no villager had been beaten that night. D.T. was also heard and denied the allegations against him. On 1 June 2001 Suceava Police sent its final report to Bacău Military Prosecutor with the recommendation not to press charges.   On 2 October 2001 Bacău Military Prosecutor decided not to prosecute on the ground that the evidence available did not confirm that the applicant had been beaten. It based that decision on witness statements taken from the applicant, his parents, five villagers, C.C. and his wife, the Deputy Mayor, the 11 police officers and guards, including D.T., and four passers-by. All of them maintained the version of events they had given to Suceava Police. The military prosecutor disregarded the villagers’ statements as biased and unreliable because they had arrived on the scene after the officials’ cars had left. Their statements did not corroborate those made by the applicant and his father concerning the beating of the applicant. The report also concluded, referring to statements made by police officers and C.C., that the conflict had not been of a racist nature.   In the meantime, Suceava Police informed the military prosecutor that no report had been filed to bring criminal proceedings for insulting behaviour against the Roma involved in the incident because it was considered to be “pure Gypsy ( pur ţigănesc ) behaviour”.   On 19 February 2002 the applicant’s father filed another complaint in which he alleged that he and his family had been harassed by the police in an attempt to make them drop their case and that witnesses were refusing to testify because they had been intimidated by the military prosecutor.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19   November 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Luis López Guerra (Spanish), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that he was ill-treated by the police on 3 April 2001 and that the subsequent investigation into the incident was inadequate. He also complained that the ill-treatment and decision not to prosecute the police officer who had beaten him were motivated by racial prejudice. He further complained that he could not appeal against that decision and was therefore prevented from seeking damages before the civil courts. He relied, in particular, on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the applicant’s allegations were coherent and supported by the medical report drawn up after the incident. Furthermore, that medical report certified that the applicant’s injuries had been sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3. The Court reiterated that, if an individual raised an arguable claim that he had been seriously ill-treated by the police, an effective official investigation was required which was capable of identifying and punishing those responsible.   The Court considered that the length of the investigation, namely one year, was not problematic. However, the Court was concerned about the effectiveness of that investigation.   Firstly, although 20 to 30 villagers were present during the incident, only three had testified before Suceava Police and five before the military prosecutor. On the other hand, all the police officers and public guards had given evidence. There was no explanation as to why the other villagers had not testified during the investigation. They had either not been called, or, as the applicant claimed, had been intimidated. In any event, the fact that they had not testified cast doubt on how thoroughly the police had investigated the case.   Secondly, the Court recalled that the applicable law at the relevant time had made the hierarchical and institutional independence of the military prosecutor doubtful. Indeed, the prosecutor had not explained why the villagers’ statements would be less credible than those of the police officers, as all those involved could be considered equally biased. Moreover, his conclusion that those villagers had not been present during the incident was contradicted by the evidence in the case. He had also only briefly examined the differences concerning the beating of the applicant and had failed to address the common points in the statements, notably those which inferred that the applicant had sustained injuries all over his body.   Thirdly, the fact that the police officers had not reported the Roma’s alleged insulting behaviour cast doubt on their version of events.   Lastly, the investigators had merely exonerated the police officers and failed to identify those responsible for the applicant’s injuries, a serious failing given that the applicant had been a minor at the time and severely disabled.   Given those deficiencies, the Court found that the Romanian authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill treatment, in violation of Article 3. The Court also therefore considered that Romania had not satisfactorily established that the applicant’s injuries had been caused other than by the treatment inflicted on him by police officers and concluded that his injuries had been the result of inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Article 13   Given the finding under Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation, the Court did not consider it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 13 alone or in conjunction with Article 14. However, it did find that a separate issue arose under Article 13 in so far as the applicant had complained that he could not appeal against the prosecutor’s decision not to bring criminal proceedings.   The Court noted that Law   no.   281/2003 which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure gave the applicant the possibility of appealing against a prosecutor’s decision taken before the entry into force of that Law and therefore found that he should have challenged the prosecutor’s decision concerning his case once that Law had came into force. Accordingly, it held that that there had been no violation of Article 13.   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3   The Court found that the military prosecutor and the police had ignored evidence of discrimination and the investigation had been racially biased. In particular, the Court was concerned by the ease with which the Prefect had concluded that the incident of 3 April 2001 had not been motivated by racism. The military prosecutor had reached the same conclusion, based solely on C.C.’s and the police officers’ evaluation of the incident. Moreover, the prosecutor had only considered the villagers, mainly Roma, to be biased in their statements, whereas he had fully integrated the police officers’ statements into his reasoning and conclusions. Neither did he address the stereotypical remark made in the Suceava Police report which had described the villagers’ alleged aggressive behaviour as “purely Gypsy”.   Given that finding, the Court considered that it was the Government’s responsibility to prove that there had been no racist motivation behind the incident of 3 April 2001.   However, the dispute, as described by the villagers and, to a certain extent, as reported by the police officers, had not been racially neutral. Notably, F.L. had allegedly been asked whether he was “Gypsy or Romanian” and, at the Deputy Mayor’s request, had been beaten to teach the Roma “a lesson”. Similarly, C.C.’s dispute with the Deputy Mayor had at its core racist elements. The “pure Gypsy” remark in the Suceava Police report had further proven that the police officers had not been racially neutral, either during the incident or throughout the investigation.   The Court found no reason to consider that the attack on the applicant by the police officers had been removed from that racist context. Neither the prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation nor the Government could put forward any argument to show that the incident had been racially neutral. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that the police officers’ behaviour had clearly been motivated by racism. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with 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) 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.