CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 mars 2010

.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 } .sBA1DA037 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3D60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .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 } 251 25.03.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1]   Shishkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 17322/04) Angel Vaskov Angelov v. Bulgaria (no. 34805/02)     POLICE BRUTALITY: THE APPLICANTS DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION   Unanimously   :   Violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights       Principal facts   The applicants are Bulgarian nationals. Angel Angelov was born in 1969 and lives in Marten (Bulgaria), and Svetlyu and Slaveyko Shishkovi, father and son, were born in 1953 and 1978 respectively and live in Sofia.   All three applicants brought proceedings alleging that they had been subjected to violence at the hands of the police. Mr Angelov, who had been arrested and taken into police custody in 1998, claimed that had confessed to the theft of which he was suspected only after being beaten by police officers. A medical report dated the day of his release recorded injuries resulting from blows with a blunt instrument, which could have been administered in the preceding 48 hours. Svetlyu and Slaveyko Shishkovi alleged that they had been beaten in 1999 by men in police uniform who had attacked them without warning while they were boating by the shores of a lake and had fired shots at their boat. It later transpired that the men had been sent to guard an Interior Ministry training centre and a forest reserve in the area.   Criminal proceedings were instituted against seven police officers accused of having ill ‑ treated Mr Shishkov and his son. In 2004, on the basis of a new provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused requested that their case be brought to court or terminated. The Military Regional Court terminated the proceedings after finding that there had been procedural shortcomings, in particular as it had not been established whether the accused had been armed with sub-machine or automatic guns, and some of the signatures were missing on various documents.   Mr Angelov, for his part, made several complaints concerning the failure of the Varna military prosecutor’s office to take action in his case. In 2003 the prosecutor had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned, on the basis of a police report which stated that no physical force had been used against the applicant. Mr Angelov appealed against that decision and an additional investigation was ordered on 12 May 2003. The police officers claimed that they had been previously unaware that Mr Angelov had been beaten and had not observed any traces of assault on him at the police station. On the basis of this testimony the military prosecutor decided in August 2004 not to open criminal proceedings against the two officers in question and found that there was no case to answer.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 3, the applicants alleged that they had been subjected to police brutality and that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation into the events in question.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights respectively on 5   May 2004 ( Shishkovi ) and 11 September 2002 ( Angel Angelov ).   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),   Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein) – Shishkovi,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – Angel Angelov – judges ,   and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The applicants’ treatment   The Bulgarian authorities had not disputed the fact that the applicants in Shishkovi had been beaten by police officers. They had been subjected to a surprise attack and shots had been repeatedly fired at their boat. Svetlyu Shishkov had sustained broken ribs and a head injury. The Government maintained that the applicants had been spying on people at a sports centre on the other side of the lake. The Court reiterated that the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment was absolute and that in a democratic society the authorities could not respond to breaches of the law by assaulting citizens.   In the case of Mr Angelov, since the criminal investigation had been closed without the case going to court, the Court had to make its own assessment of the facts. The findings of the medical report compiled on the day of Mr Angelov’s release – which recorded signs of violent blows from a blunt instrument which could have been inflicted on the second day of his detention – had been backed up by the medical expert report ordered by the first ‑ instance court. This evidence served to corroborate the applicant’s account, particularly since the Government had not furnished any satisfactory explanation as to the origin of his injuries.   The Court therefore concluded that the three applicants had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of the police, in breach of Article 3.   Investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment   In the Angelov case, the Court observed the authorities’ inaction, noting that the military prosecutor’s office had not commenced its investigation until nearly four and a half years after the events, despite repeated requests from the applicant and although the authorities had had a medical expert report suggesting that the applicant had been ill-treated by the police. The Court also noted the slowness of the investigation, with some witnesses being questioned six years after the events. The military prosecutor’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers had also been based on questionable grounds, namely the statements of the officers themselves and of witnesses who claimed not to have seen the applicant’s injuries,. The decision not to prosecute had not offered any explanation for those injuries, despite the fact that they had been recorded in the expert medical report.   In Shishkovi , the Court took the view that the authorities had displayed excessive formalism, terminating the proceedings against the persons responsible on account of “material procedural breaches” which were in fact of little consequence for the proceedings, like the failure to establish whether the accused had been armed with sub-machine or automatic guns and alleged defects in the taking of some of the evidence. The Court considered that these did not amount to “material breaches” within the meaning of the relevant domestic legislation. In considering them as such and terminating the proceedings, the authorities had not brought the persons responsible to trial which had secured their impunity.   The Court concluded that none of the three applicants had had the benefit of an effective and thorough investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Bulgaria was to pay 10,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Svetlyu Shishkov and EUR 9,000 to Mr Slaveyko Shishkov. As Mr Angelov had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court made no award in that respect.   *** The judgment Shishkovi v. Bulgaria is available only in English and the judgment Angel Vaskov Angelov v. Bulgaria is available only in French . 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 Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 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.