CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 mars 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 } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   270 31.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT WIKTORKO v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Wiktorko v. Poland (application no. 14612/02).   The Court held:   unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s degrading treatment in a sobering-up centre; and, by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate investigation into the incident.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 7,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Anna Wiktorko, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Olsztyn (Poland).   On 27 December 1999 Ms Wiktorko, on her way home by taxi after having a drink with a friend, refused to pay the excessive bill unless she was given a proper receipt; instead of taking her home, the taxi driver drove her to a sobering-up centre.   She alleges that, on arrival at the sobering-up centre, she was insulted, stripped naked by a woman and two men, beaten and put in restraining belts for the night. She was released the following morning.   Examined by a doctor the next day, the medical certificate noted that she had a bruise on her hip, a scratched wrist, a painful shoulder and a swollen jaw.   Shortly afterwards she filed a complaint against the staff of the centre with the Olsztyn district police, submitting that their conduct had been humiliating and debasing.   The ensuing investigation found that the applicant, inebriated, had refused to pay her taxi fare and had been abusive towards the police, the centre’s staff and the doctor who had tried to examine her. Given her resistance and refusal to undress, the staff had been obliged to use force against her and place her in restraining belts.   The investigation, discontinued in January and April 2000, was on both occasions subsequently reopened; ultimately, in August 2000 the proceedings were discontinued on the ground that no criminal offence had been committed.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 April 2001 and its admissibility was examined together with its merits.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that she was subjected to degrading treatment at the sobering-up centre and that the authorities’ investigation into the incident was inadequate.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 (treatment)   The applicant had been stripped naked by three employees of the centre, one woman and two men. The Court took the view, as it had done in other cases before it, that to be stripped naked in the presence of a member of the opposite sex lacked respect and human dignity for the person concerned. Similarly, the applicant had to have been left with feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her, and all the more so given that the two male members of staff had forcibly undressed her.   Even more worryingly, no explanation had been given for the necessity of putting the applicant in restraining belts for such an excessive period of time as ten hours. Such prolonged immobilisation had to have caused her great distress and physical discomfort, which could not be considered compatible with Article 3 standards.   The Court therefore concluded that the authorities’ conduct had amounted to degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Article 3 (investigation)   The Court noted that the investigation of the applicant’s complaint had lasted seven months, the investigation having been reopened on two occasions due to significant procedural shortcomings. It further noted that the investigation had focused on justifying why the applicant had been detained and force used against her without addressing the question of why that use of force had infringed her right to respect for human dignity. The authorities had therefore failed to assess the proportionality of the force used, namely they had not justified the forced removal of the applicant’s clothing by two male employees or the use of restraining belts to immobilise her until the next day.   In conclusion, the Court found that the manner in which the case had been examined had been inadequate, in violation of Article 3.     Judges Garlicki and Björgvinsson expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is appended to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.