CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1D1639D9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEF2D6E86 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } 973 17.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] [1] Denis Vasilyev v Russia (application no. 32704/04)     FAILURE TO ASSIST VICTIM OF AN ASSAULT, FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION   Unanimously     Five violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Denis Vasilyev is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow. Late at night on 29 June 2001 Mr Vasilyev and his friend were attacked and hit strongly on the head as a result of which they fainted collapsing on the ground. Money, golden bracelet and a mobile phone were stolen from them. Neighbours called the police who arrived at the scene shortly after 1.30 a.m. The police, who according to their submission believed that the two friends were drunk, dragged them by the armpits and left them alone not far from the nearby rubbish bins; they then went to check on a signal by a private-security coordinator alerting them that a property alarm had gone off elsewhere. The two friends were found lying on the ground by the building janitors on the following morning. Ambulances were called and the applicant and his friend taken to two different hospitals: the applicant unconscious, his friend having regained consciousness.   Upon arrival at the hospital at about 9 a.m. Mr Vasilyev was diagnosed with alcohol intoxication. Two hours later he was examined by a neurosurgeon. Between the time of his arrival and 5 p.m. on the following day, he was left lying unconscious and undressed on a trolley in the hospital’s corridor. His state deteriorated to the point where emergency surgery was required. Nine days later he was transferred in a state of coma to another hospital. Between July 2001 and June 2003, several life-saving operations were carried out on him; he was given second category disability in October 2001.   The day following the attack the police received hospital reports concerning bodily injuries on the applicant and his friend. However, an internal inquiry into the event was opened only twenty days later and then discontinued after two months. The criminal proceedings were resumed and suspended many times after that, the investigators finding that the perpetrator of the assault could not be identified.   In January 2002, following a complaint by Mr Vasilyev’s mother, a separate inquiry was opened in which the two police officers who had seen and abandoned the applicant and his friend on the night of the incident were ultimately acquitted, the courts finding unproven that they had known that the lives of the two young boys lying on the ground had been in danger.   Another criminal inquiry was opened in March 2003 in which two medical studies were carried out to examine whether medical negligence had taken place in the process of treating the applicant. The inquiry was suspended and resumed several times. The two medical studies issued diverging findings: the first one, based on the original medical file, concluded that the applicant was not diligently examined or treated upon his arrival at the hospital which led to drastic deterioration of his condition; the second one, based only on partial copies of the file which had in the meantime been lost, found that the diagnosis and surgery had been carried out in a timely fashion. As of late November 2006, the investigation was still pending and no charges had been brought.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Articles 3 and 13, Mr Vasilyev complained about the police officers’ not having assisted him when they found him unconscious on the ground, about the inadequate medical care he was given in the hospital, as well as about the ineffective investigation carried out into his assault, into the actions of the police and into the medical negligence of which he complained.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 July 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article 3   No assistance provided to applicant by the police   The Court noted that, undeniably, the police had been aware that the applicant had been in a vulnerable and life-threatening position having found him unconscious. Under Russian law, the police had a duty to assist all persons and especially victims of attacks; this duty was codified in detail in the relevant laws. The Convention also imposed the obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being within the control of the authorities. The two officers who had found Mr Vasilyev, however, had not examined him, had not called an ambulance, but instead had dragged him by the armpits although that had been contrary both to the law and to the most basic requirements of first-aid. As regards the police officers’ precipitated departure from the scene, the fact that there had existed an arrangement under which orders of private-security co-ordinators took precedence over the orders of the officers-on-duty at the police stations, was found by the Court to be a flagrant perversion of priorities, as it had the effect of putting the protection of private property before that of the applicant’s life. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 3 as a result of the failure of the police officers to assist the applicant.   Lack of adequate medical care in the Moscow hospital   The Court noted that the applicant had been left lying undressed and unconscious in the hospital’s corridor for almost two days without medical attention, the hospital having failed to carry out the most basic procedures in case of a new patient. The Court gave greater credence to the findings of the first medical study given that it had been conducted using the original medical file and by a medical panel working for the Ministry of Defence which, unlike the second panel affiliated with the Moscow authorities, had been an institution unrelated to both the hospital and the investigative authority. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the inadequate medical care provided to the applicant.   Lack of effective investigation   The Court noted that the local residents had informed the police immediately of the brutal attack on the applicant. Despite that, the police officers who had arrived at the scene had not drawn up any report nor opened an inquiry into the circumstances in the days that followed. Further, although criminal proceedings were ultimately brought, the prosecution authorities had themselves acknowledged that a number of major investigative steps had not been taken, like reporting on the crime scene and interviewing of neighbourhood residents. The responsibility for the investigation was transferred to a different police or prosecution authority at least three times and within five years no less than twelve decisions to discontinue criminal proceedings were issued, only to be subsequently set aside by supervising prosecutors. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 3 as a result of the serious shortcomings in the investigation carried out into the assault of the applicant.   The Court also found two violations of Article 3 on account of the ineffective investigations carried out into the actions of the police and into the medical negligence by the staff at the hospital. In particular, the Court held that the authorities had been rather late with the opening of criminal investigations into the applicant’s complaints as these had been brought respectively six months and almost two years after the events. In addition the investigation concerning the actions of the police had been incomplete and the prosecution had failed to collect the necessary evidence which had led to the collapse of the case against the police officers in court. As regards the investigation into the medical negligence, the investigative authorities had demonstrated determination to get rid of the case in a hasty manner; as a result, several investigators had been reprimanded or disciplined. In addition a crucial piece of evidence, the original medical record, had been lost rendering impossible the determination of whether the alleged inadequate medical assistance had led to damage to his health.   Article 13 The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of a structural problem of the Russian legal system in which a civil claim for damages has limited chances for success where criminal proceedings against the State officials were discontinued or ended in an acquittal.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 75,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 78,000 non-pecuniary damage.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.