CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 mai 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   345 13.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Georgescu v. Romania (application no. 25230/03).   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 on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment while in pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the criminal complaint by the applicant’s wife alleging ill-treatment; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Florin Georgescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest.   He was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention at the Bucharest District Police Detention Centre from 11 January 1996 on suspicion of fraud and forgery. Having initially been released on 8 April 1996, he was returned to custody from 14 June 1996 until 18 December 1997.   The applicant alleged during the first four weeks of his detention that he had been beaten by masked police officers and fellow inmates, on the orders of the investigators. While being interrogated at night, under threat of death, he had been forced to bend over with his hands handcuffed behind his knees. While he was in that position, the investigators would suspend him with his head facing downwards from a truncheon passed between his hands and feet. He was beaten on his feet with his shoes on until he lost consciousness. He was allegedly subjected to the same treatment every two to four days. He was also taken to offices and beaten over the back and head with long metal-reinforced truncheons, while being verbally abused. Once he was punched in the liver by the investigators for two hours until he almost lost consciousness. His fellow detainees, encouraged by the investigators, raped the applicant, broke his teeth and forced him to eat food on which they had urinated. The applicant’s lawyer, informed by the applicant’s wife about the ill-treatment, managed to have him moved to a different cell, where he was again assaulted and humiliated.   The Government denied the applicant’s allegations.   On 12 February 1996 the applicant informed the prosecutor that he was suffering from mental disorders that made him unfit for detention, and asked to undergo psychiatric tests. The psychiatrists who examined him on 22 February 1996 diagnosed him with a personality disorder and prescribed him antidepressants.   In a criminal complaint lodged with the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office on 16   February 1996 the applicant’s wife alleged that her husband had been ill-treated while in detention. On 21 March 1996 two detainees who claimed to have shared a cell with the applicant were interviewed and stated that he had not been subjected to any ill-treatment. The military prosecutor ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. A medical report issued on 4 April 1996 noted that he had several bruises and swellings on his arms and body and that his liver was very sensitive and required an ultrasound scan. The report referred to “injuries caused by hitting with hard objects which could have taken place 15 to 30 days before the medical examination” and stated that the applicant should have received “6 to 7 days’ medical treatment” for the injuries. On 24 April 1996 the military prosecutor sent a letter to the applicant’s wife, stating that “the investigation showed that the facts complained about had taken place because of the conflicts between [the applicant] and his fellow inmates, caused by [the applicant’s] mental illness. They had not been caused by the wardens.” Finding that the acts under investigation were not prohibited by the criminal law, the military prosecutor decided on 19 April 1996 to discontinue the proceedings. The applicant and his wife were not notified of that decision until August 2003.   On 4 July 2003 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued as the prosecution of the offence had become time-barred.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 July 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Ann Power (Irish), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   3, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated while in pre-trial detention and that the investigation of the complaint lodged by his wife had not been effective. He further complained, under Article 6 §   1, that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud and forgery had been excessive.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that it was clear from the medical report (although it had been issued more than a month after the alleged ill-treatment had occurred) and the conclusions reached by the military prosecutor that the applicant’s injuries had been sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment falling within the scope of Article 3.   As to the investigation conducted in the present case, the Court observed that it had already held that military prosecutors called upon to investigate complaints of ill-treatment allegedly committed by police officers and prison warders were not independent. The manner in which the investigation had been conducted in the applicant’s case bore out that conclusion.   Firstly, although the applicant had shared his cell with several other people, the prosecutor had heard evidence from only two detainees, one of whom, according to the official records, did not appear to have ever been detained in the same cell as the applicant. No police officers or warders had been asked to give evidence.   Secondly, the prosecutor’s findings had been limited to exonerating the police officers. Similarly, with regard to the allegations of violence on the part of other detainees, the manner in which the investigation had been conducted had not made it possible to identify them.   Lastly, the Court pointed out that both the prison authorities and the military prosecutor had been informed of the applicant’s mental disorders. Even assuming that, as the prosecutor had concluded, the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted by his fellow inmates because of his behaviour and his mental problems, the Court considered that, far from exonerating the Romanian authorities of any responsibility, that fact indicated their failure to provide him with prison conditions appropriate to his medical condition, at least from 16 February 1996, when his allegations of ill-treatment had been brought to their attention.   The Court concluded that the Government had not satisfactorily established that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by anything other than the treatment to which he had been subjected while under the authorities’ supervision, and considered that the injuries had been the result of inhuman and degrading treatment. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant.   The Court further concluded that the Romanian authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill treatment, in breach of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the proceedings against the applicant had lasted seven years and six months. It considered that such a period was excessive and incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, and accordingly found a violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   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.