CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 juillet 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 } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   563 31.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VASIL PETROV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Vasil Petrov v. Bulgaria (application no. 57883/00).   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 ill-treatment sustained by Mr Petrov while in police custody; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the Bulgarian authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment;   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) on account of the excessive length of the proceedings brought against the applicant.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vasil Kimov Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Sofia. He is a musician and photographer.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to violence by police officers while in police custody and that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation in this regard.   On 26 February 1998 the applicant’s studio was searched. He was arrested and placed in police custody on suspicion of having suggested to two underage girls that they pose for nude photographs.   He was taken to a police station and placed in one of its rooms, where he was handcuffed to a pipe that ran above his head. He remained in that position for four hours and then again for the entire night. Throughout his detention in police custody, he was subjected to truncheon blows and received punches and kicks from the police officers.   He also claimed that he had been attached to the bars of a door in a corridor of the police station, with his left wrist attached to the upper part of the bars and his right wrist tied to the lower part, in such a way that he was unable to stand straight. He remained in this position for between 30 minutes and an hour.   On 27 February the applicant was placed under investigation for indecent assault on N.T., a model who had posed for him, and for the production of pornographic materials. He was then released.   On 28 February the applicant was examined by a specialist in forensic medicine. According to the medical certificate issued on completion of the examination, he had several bruises and hematomas across his body. The certificate stated that these wounds could have occurred at the time and in the manner described by the applicant.   On 2 April 1998 the applicant was examined by a neurologist, who found an injury to the sensory fibres of the radial nerves of the left hand and a minor injury to the motor fibres. The forensic specialist who had previously examined the applicant concluded these injuries could have been caused by the use of excessively tight handcuffs, as described by the applicant.   On 29 May 1998 the applicant filed a complaint alleging ill-treatment by the police officers. In November 1998, the prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings for lack of evidence, on the ground that the accused police officers had denied the applicant’s allegations; however, this decision was overturned on appeal. The case was subsequently sent back for investigation on two occasions, on account of several shortcomings and irregularities. Finally, by an order of 7   September 2005, the Sofia Military Court dropped the criminal proceedings against the police officers on the ground that they were time-barred.   In the meantime, in June 2001 the Sofia prosecutor’s office closed the criminal proceedings against Mr Petrov on the grounds, firstly, that the offence of creating pornographic material was time-barred and, secondly, that there was insufficient evidence concerning the charges of indecent assault.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 March 1999 and declared partly admissible on 30 August 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Rait Maruste (Estonian), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Renate Jaeger (German), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgarian), judges , and also Stephen Phillips , Deputy 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 Petrov complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and claimed that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation into his allegations. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he further complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As to the allegations of ill-treatment It was clear from the evidence presented to the Court, particularly the detailed allegations submitted by the applicant - which were not contested by the Bulgarian Government - and the medical certificates and other evidence gathered in the course of the domestic criminal proceedings, that the applicant had sustained several injuries while in police custody, as a result of ill-treatment inflicted by at least three police officers. The Court noted that the Government had provided no plausible explanation for those injuries and had not alleged that the use of force against the applicant had been made necessary in some way by his conduct and thus been justified.   The Court noted that the violence sustained by the applicant, the fact of having been handcuffed to a pipe for several hours in a standing position and the police officers’ insulting attitude undeniably caused him acute physical and mental suffering, and were capable of arousing in the applicant feelings of fear and anguish. It also appeared that that treatment was inflicted on account of the applicant’s refusal to provide explanations and as punishment for the offences he was suspected of committing. The Court noted, however, that the evidence submitted to it did not suggest that the injuries sustained by the applicant had had long-term consequences for his health   In consequence, the Court considered that the applicant had sustained at the hands of the police officers inhuman and degrading treatment of considerable seriousness, which, while it could not be classified as torture, nonetheless amounted to a serious violation of the rights protected by Article 3.   As to the investigation The Court noted that a preliminary investigation had been rapidly opened once the applicant had filed his criminal complaint.     It noted, however, that the proceedings had lasted more than seven years and that that delay was largely due to a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities. Delays which were attributable to the Bulgarian authorities had occurred throughout the proceedings and had ultimately resulted in the closure of the proceedings on the ground that they were time-barred.   In the light of the foregoing, the Court considered that the Bulgarian authorities had not shown due promptness and diligence and concluded that the investigation had not met the “effectiveness” criteria, thus entailing a further violation of Article 3.   Having regard to the conclusion it had reached, the Court held that the case did not raise any separate issue under Article 13.   Article 6 § 1 The Court noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had lasted three years, three months and 16 days, without progressing further than the preliminary investigation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that length of proceedings was excessive and did not meet the “reasonable time” requirement, in breach of Article 6 § 1.       ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.