CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 avril 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s6AE8D4B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } 332 22.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber Judgment Not Final [1]   Stefanou v. Greece ( Application n o   2954/07)   SIXTEEN - YEAR OLD ROMA ILL-TREATED BY THE POLICE   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Theodoros Stefanou, is a Greek national of Roma origin, who was born in 1985 and lives in Athens. He was sixteen years old at the time of the events.   On 5 August 2001, a kiosk owner in Argostoli, on the island of Cephalonia, reported that approximately 28,000 euros (EUR) had been stolen from him. The police conducted an immediate investigation and arrested in that connection four young persons of Roma origin. They were then tried in summary proceedings on the following day and were acquitted of all charges.   The applicant, who was a friend of the four youths, turned up at the police station spontaneously on 5 August 2001 out of fellow feeling for his friends. He was also shown to the kiosk owner but was not recognised by him.   According to Theodoros, while at the police station, he was questioned about his possible involvement in the theft. He was also punched and slapped hard in the face to make him confess that he had taken part in it. A few hours after his release he was medically examined in a hospital and a certificate was issued to him on the day registering numerous injuries on his head. Two days later Theodoros attempted to lodge a complaint with the prosecutor about the beating but did not do it as the prosecutor was absent from his office.   In September 2001, the World Organisation Against Torture denounced the ill-treatment of Theodoros in the Argostoli police station and in October that year he formally complained to the prosecutor about it. The investigation was carried out by the hierarchical superior police authority to the Argostoli police which was even situated in the same building. Although the first instance criminal court convicted a police officer for having ill-treated the applicant and sentenced him to three years imprisonment, the police officer in question was acquitted on appeal.   Theodoros complained on two occasions, in September 2003 and in July 2005 respectively, to the prosecutors in Cephalonia and Athens about eleven police officers whom he accused among other things of blackmail and forgery. In his complaint he alleged racial bias on the part of the police commander involved in his August 2001 questioning and claimed that he was ill-treated because of his Roma origin. The police officers were never tried, charges having been either not brought against them (by decision of 11 August 2004) or dropped (by a decision of 27 June 2006).     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 14, the applicant complained that he had been seriously ill-treated and that because of his Roma origin, that no effective investigation had been carried out into his complaints and that the criminal proceedings brought as a result of his complaint had lasted too long.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 January 2007   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar     Decision of the Court   Ill-treatment (Article 3)   The Court noted that the parties agreed that Theodoros had suffered injuries on or around the date of his arrest but disagreed about whether or not the injuries had been caused by police officers. The Court observed that as soon as the applicant had left the police station his injuries had been recorded by the local hospital. In addition, the first instance criminal court had established that one police officer had repeatedly punched Theodoros in the head and caused him serious bodily harm. While the appeal court had overturned that ruling finding that the applicant had injured his arm during an unrelated fight the previous night, the Court noted that the hospital certificate had only registered head injuries consistent with the applicant’s complaints and had been silent about an arm being broken.   The Court thus had serious doubts about the alleged fight capable of providing a convincing explanation for the origin of Theodoros’s head injuries. The Court considered that these doubts were supported by the inadequacy of the investigation into this particular aspect. A number of shortcomings in the investigation were identified: it had been carried out by a police officer from the Directorate responsible for the police station of the alleged perpetrators; the applicant’s state of health at the time he arrived at the police station had not been established nor recorded anywhere; and no serious attempt had been made to elucidate whether the applicant had actually participated in a previous fight or any other event which could have caused the injuries he had.   The Court further noted that at the time of the events Theodoros had been sixteen years old.   The Court concluded that, in view of the above, Theodoros had been seriously physically harmed by the police. This ill-treatment had inevitably further caused him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority as a result of his young age. Consequently, there had been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.   The Court found that it was not necessary to examine separately whether or not the investigation into the ill-treatment would comply with the requirements of Article 3.   Alleged racial discrimination (Article 14)   The Court noted that the Greek prosecuting authorities had decided, on 11 August 2004 and 27   June 2006 respectively, not to press any charges against the police officers accused by Theodoros to have racially profiled him. The applicant had only applied before the Court on 4   January 2007. That had been more than six months after the latest of the above-mentioned decisions by the national authorities on the issue. The applicant had therefore complained too late before the Court about his alleged discrimination, as the Convention allowed for any complaint a maximum of six months after the last domestic decision taken in that respect. Accordingly that part of his application was rejected as inadmissible.   Length of criminal proceedings (Article 6 § 1)   Having noted that the criminal proceedings concerning Theodoros’s ill-treatment had lasted six years, six months and seven days at two levels of jurisdiction, the Court held that this had been an excessively long time, in violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held   that   Greece is to pay the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. The press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .