CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 janvier 2009

.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 } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   004 8.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IRIBARREN PINILLOS v. SPAIN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Iribarren Pinillos v. Spain (application no. 36777/03).   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 failings in the domestic examination of the injuries suffered by the applicant when a smoke-bomb was fired by the security forces during a demonstration and because of the assessment of the question of the necessity and proportionality of the use of the smoke-bomb; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 100,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage   and EUR   30,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mikel Iribarren Pinillos, is a Spanish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Pamplona (Spain).   He complained of injuries he had sustained during clashes with the security forces in 1991.   During the night of 15 December 1991 violent clashes took place in the old town of Pamplona. Demonstrators built barricades and lit fires, so the police were obliged to fire smoke-bombs and tear-gas grenades over a period of several hours. The applicant, who was taking part in the disturbances, was seriously injured when he was struck by a smoke-bomb fired at very short range by the anti-riot police.   When Red Cross volunteers arrived on the scene the applicant had stopped breathing, part of his face was burned and was paralysed down his left side.   Criminal proceedings instituted on account of the serious injuries the applicant had sustained ended with a discontinuation order. In a decision of 29 September 1995 the Navarre Audiencia Provincial ruled, among other findings, that the security forces’ commission of the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm had been “duly established” but that it had not been possible to identify the person who had fired the missile. Mr Iribarren Pinillos was certified disabled and in May 1997 he was awarded a permanent invalidity benefit by the Government of Navarre at 37% of the maximum rate.   In August 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Minister of the Interior claiming damages from the administrative authorities in respect of the injuries he had sustained. The sum claimed amounted to EUR   283,826.86. The investigating official proposed that the applicant should be awarded EUR   101,037.71, or half of the sum he would have received if he had not taken part in the disturbances. The officials of the State legal service attached to the Ministry approved the proposal. However, at the end of the proceedings the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that the damage he had sustained could not be imputed to the administrative authorities.   In December 1997 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the Audiencia Nacional . In a judgment of 1 July 1998 that court allowed part of his claim, awarding him damages in the sum of EUR 60,101.21. However, on 31 January 2003 the Supreme Court set aside that judgment and held at final instance that the reaction of the security forces had not been disproportionate and that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been due to chance, so that he was obliged to bear the damage himself.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz (Spain) , ad hoc judge , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Iribarren Pinillos complained of an interference with his physical and mental integrity on account of the disproportionate nature of the police reaction. He further argued that he had not had the benefit of an effective investigation during the criminal proceedings, and that no additional investigation had been carried out by the administrative courts. He further complained of the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant him the redress he sought for the damage he had sustained. He relied on Articles 3, 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6   §   1.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that it was not disputed between the parties that the applicant had been injured by a police officer during violent clashes with the security forces. Although the ensuing investigation had not identified the officer who had fired the smoke-bomb, the Audiencia Provincial had ruled that the police had committed the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. Thus the Spanish State’s liability for the damage sustained by the applicant had been established.   As to the question whether the applicant had been able to obtain appropriate redress for the damage sustained, the Court observed that he had reasonable prospects of winning his case, account being taken of his compensation claim against the administrative authorities. However, it remains to be determined whether that remedy was also effective in practice.   Noting the conclusions of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court, the Court held that it did not find such reasoning persuasive. Firstly, it noted that the criminal courts had not established or sought to establish whether the applicant shared any responsibility for the damage he had sustained. Secondly, the administrative courts had not carried out any further investigation during the administrative complaint proceedings with a view to determining the applicant’s share of liability. The Court considered that he could not be required to bear alone the results of being hit by the smoke-bomb. Use of the smoke-bomb and the way in which it had been fired necessarily entailed a risk to the physical integrity and even the lives of the persons present. The Court considered that the Spanish courts had not determined whether the way the security forces had used the missile was strictly necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim of putting an end to the disturbances.   The Court further noted that the Supreme Court had not taken account of the administrative authorities’ liability for the events as established by the criminal courts. Nor had it correctly examined the question whether the applicant had suffered actual, monetarily quantifiable damage or the causal link between the offence and the damage suffered. The Court accordingly found that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length – 11 years and ten months – of the proceedings complained of.   Article 8   The Court held unanimously that no separate issue arose under Article 8.     Judges Fura-Sandström, Gyulumyan and Saiz Arnaiz expressed a partially dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.