CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .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   730 16.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VLADIMIR GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Vladimir Georgiev v. Bulgaria (application no. 61275/00).   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 applicant’s ill-treatment in custody; and, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ inadequate investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.   Under Article   41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Georgiev 6,000   euros EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Angelov Georgiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Sofia.   On 28 May 1999 Mr Georgiev was taken into custody on charges of inflicting bodily harm. He was released on 10 June 1999. The case concerned the applicant’s complaints that he was ill-treated during that period of custody and that the authorities did not properly investigate his allegations.   According to the applicant, on the first day of his custody he was kicked, punched and slapped in order to force him to sign papers regarding his pre-trial detention and the criminal charges against him. He was then left in a corridor for two hours handcuffed to a pipe at eye-level. On 30 May 1999, in protest about his ill-treatment, he cut himself on his forearms with a piece of broken glass; to make him stop, one of the prison guards kicked him and hit him with a truncheon. The following day, the applicant, again in protest about his treatment, banged his head against the wall; as a result he was dragged out of his cell and hit with a truncheon on his thighs. He was subsequently examined by an in-house doctor and then by another doctor at the Ministry of Internal Affairs hospital.   Following his release, the applicant took colour photographs of his injuries and was examined by a doctor of the Sofia Medical Academy who reported numerous injuries all over his body and notably on his back, forearms, thorax, flanks, buttocks, thighs and legs.   The applicant complained about his ill-treatment to the prosecution authorities and requested that criminal proceedings be brought against the officers who had ill-treated him. An inquiry was carried out which concluded that no criminal offence had been committed against the applicant. In a further decision the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office added that the applicant’s injuries could have been the result of the prison guards having been obliged to subdue him. Internal inquiries carried out by the Ministry of Justice also found that prison staff had acted appropriately and had not used excessive force.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 June 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Rait Maruste (Estonian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgarian), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Mr   Georgiev complained that he was ill-treated during custody and that the authorities did not properly investigate his allegations. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Severity of the treatment   The Court observed that in the proceedings before it neither the Bulgarian authorities nor the Government had provided an explanation or produced evidence to cast doubt on the applicant’s allegations.   Indeed, the applicant, taken into custody in good health, had sustained many injuries all over his body which, following his release, had still been visible in photographs and which had been noted in a doctor’s report.   Some of those injuries – to the applicant’s back and forearms – might have been the result of the guards’ efforts to immobilise him. However, other injuries such as those to his thorax, flanks, buttocks thighs and legs appeared to have been caused by random blows made with considerable force by truncheons.   The Court therefore concluded that the force used against the applicant had clearly been excessive, in violation of Article   3.   Adequacy of the investigation   The Court noted that, although an inquiry had been launched into the applicant’s allegations, it had a number of shortcomings. The officers and the applicant’s cellmates who had eye-witnessed the three incidents and the two doctors who had examined the applicant during his custody had not been interviewed. Nor had any medical evidence been collected. In particular, the investigation had not accounted for all the applicant’s numerous injuries.   Furthermore, the internal inquiries carried out by the Ministry of Justice, partly relying on the prosecution’s findings, had been even more cursory.   The Court therefore held that there had been a further violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation.   Article 13   The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article   13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.