CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9E924E36 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#339966 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     715 01.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Stanchev v. Bulgaria (application no. 8682/02 )   NO APPEAL AGAINST FIVE-DAY SENTENCE   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Angel Petkov Stanchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). He claims he co-owns a piece of land in Dragor (a village in the south west of Bulgaria). On 28 January 2002 two police officers, following Mr Stanchev having changed the lock at the entrance to that land, and acting at the request of his mother and the person to whom she had sold half the land, asked the applicant to accompany them to the police station. The applicant refused and resisted until he was arrested. The parties disagree as to the circumstances of the arrest. In any event, the police were obliged to use force and handcuffed Mr Stanchev, who was eventually taken to the police station.   The same day, proceedings were brought against Mr Stanchev for disturbance of public order and the Pazardzhik District Court sentenced him to five days’ administrative detention for a minor public-order offence. Under Bulgarian law no appeal lay against that judgment, which was enforced immediately. Mr Stanchev nevertheless attempted various courses of action (appeal, complaints against the police officers, action for damages), but to no avail.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), the applicant complained that he had had no remedy against his conviction. Further relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of ill-treatment during his arrest and of the lack of an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 February 2002 and declared partly admissible on 30 August 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen, President , Renate Jaeger , Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , judges ,   and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,   Decision of the Court   Lack of remedy against conviction   Persons convicted of criminal offences must be able to appeal to a higher court, but there are exceptions – in the case of minor offences, for example.   The offence of which Mr Stanchev was convicted was indeed an “administrative” one under Bulgarian law but a criminal offence for the purposes of the Convention, in view of its general scope and the fact that it was punishable by up to 15 days’ imprisonment. This meant that it could not be considered a “minor” offence.   Mr Stanchev should therefore have been able to have his conviction for a minor disturbance of public order examined by a higher court, which was clearly not the case under Bulgarian law. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.   Allegations of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation   The Court held that Mr Stanchev’s conduct in refusing to obey the police and resisting arrest had made it necessary for the police to use force, and that the force they had used had not been disproportionate. In the circumstances, the fact that he had been made to wear handcuffs was not a problem.   Concerning the effectiveness of the investigation, the Court noted in particular that the investigating authorities had taken various steps to clarify the facts and that the police officers’ version of events had been confirmed by eye-witnesses to the arrest and fully corroborated by the medical certificate issued to the applicant.   There had therefore been no violation of Article 3.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.