CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 avril 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   310 14.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT OLTEANU v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Olteanu v. Romania (application no. 71090/01). The case concerns ill-treatment suffered by the applicant when arrested by the police.   The Court held unanimously:   that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the injuries inflicted on the applicant on 16 May 1997, and the lack of an effective investigation; and, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the shortcomings of the medical treatment given to the applicant after his arrest.   Applying Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 18,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   7,844 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nicu Olteanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bucharest.   On 16 May 1997, Mr Olteanu was arrested by two plain-clothes police officers, in front of his eight-year-old son, when he took hold of a pack of six bottles of water in the boot of a car. After being taken to the nearest police station he attempted to escape by breaking a window in the room he had been taken to. One of the two policemen ran after him and shot him in the left foot. The applicant was then taken to the police station, where he was ordered to be taken to hospital.   In addition to the bullet wound, the medical certificate mentioned cuts on Mr Olteanu’s right leg and right forearm. In hospital an operation was performed to remove two metal bodies from the applicant’s instep.   Mr Olteanu was taken back to the police station immediately after the operation, spent the night there and had to return to the hospital the next morning for treatment with antibiotics. He was remanded in custody on 17 May and examined in the prison infirmary on 19 May. The medical report noted bruising around Mr Olteanu’s eyes and on his body and a head injury “following an altercation outside the police station holding cell on 17 May”. Thereafter, the applicant was not seen by a doctor again before 14 June.   On 21 May Mr Olteanu complained to the Bucharest County Court that he had been struck in the face by one of the policemen. In August he complained to the Bucharest military prosecutor’s office against the two policemen and the duty officer; the related proceedings ended in November 1999 with a decision that there was no case to answer. In February 2000 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged that decision before the Military Prosecution Division of the Supreme Court of Justice.   On 3 September 1998 the Bucharest County Court acquitted Mr Olteanu of robbery but sentenced him to one year and 18 days’ imprisonment for contravening accepted moral standards, disturbing the peace, and destroying the police station window; it found that the equivalent of the sentence had been served while the applicant was detained pending trial. On 1 February 2000, on appeal by the prosecution, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the County Court’s judgment, convicted the applicant of robbery and obstructing police officers in the execution of their duties, and upheld the convictions relating to the other charges. The applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He was committed to prison on 23   March 2000 but released after receiving a presidential pardon on 27 April.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2001 and declared partly admissible on 26 January 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), 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 subjected to ill-treatment by the police at the time of his arrest and that thereafter he had not been given appropriate medical treatment, despite having received a bullet wound after being shot by a police officer.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The injuries inflicted on the applicant at the time of his arrest   It was not disputed that the bullet wound had occurred during the arrest. However, there was no evidence of violent conduct on Mr Olteanu’s part to explain the degree of force used. Moreover, he was charged on 17 May 1997 with abuse of the arresting officers not with physical resistance to them.   The investigation into the police officers’ conduct had been opened only three months after the applicant’s complaint, and the composition of the military prosecutor’s office could objectively give rise to doubts about its impartiality, as it was composed of serving officers subject to the principle of hierarchical subordination.   Consequently, the Court considered that the Romanian Government had not convincingly explained the degree of force used, which had been excessive and unjustified in the circumstances. The considerable suffering the applicant had undergone amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3, especially as his son had witnessed the events.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the injuries inflicted on Mr Olteanu and the lack of an effective investigation.   Medical assistance after the arrest   The applicant had been taken back to the police station after undergoing major surgery so that he could be questioned about an offence of no great seriousness. But his state of health required him to be under close supervision, as evidenced by the need to administer antibiotics the very next morning. The Court did not see the urgency of transferring the applicant to the police station. It concluded that there had been a failure to provide appropriate treatment, in breach of Article 3.     ***   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.