CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 juillet 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     543   20.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CALOC v. FRANCE     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 20 July 2000 in the case of Caloc v. France, the European Court of Human Rights held by 6 votes to 1 that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights and unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 60,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   On 29 September 1988 Adrien Caloc, a French national born in 1954 who lives at Le Lorrain in Martinique presented himself at the police station ( gendarmerie ) at Le Lorrain, where he had been asked to attend for questioning in connection with a complaint that he had sabotaged two bulldozers.   On 18 November 1988 Mr Caloc lodged a complaint against the Le Lorrain police with the Fort-de-France public prosecutor, alleging assault occasioning actual bodily harm; a police investigation was launched as a result. On 6 March 1996 – more than seven years and three months later – the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law against a judgment that had been delivered on 15 December 1994 by the Indictment Division of the Basse-Terre Court of Appeal, which had ruled that there was no case to answer for lack of sufficient evidence against the police officers.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 May 1996. Having declared the application admissible on 25 May 1998, the Commission adopted a report on 3 March 1999 in which it expressed the opinion by 28 votes to 1 that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of the proceedings. It referred the case to the Court on 3 June 1999. A hearing took place on 11 January 2000. Judgment was given by a Chamber composed as follows:   Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the length of the criminal proceedings which he had joined as a civil party had been excessive, contrary to Article   6.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As to the alleged lack of any effective investigation   The Court observed that in the instant case a preliminary investigation was opened by the public prosecutor’s office on 30 November 1988, less than fifteen days after the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint. The doctors who had examined the applicant while he was in police custody and immediately after his release were interviewed on 28 February and 1   March 1989 respectively. The applicant himself was interviewed on 23 and 28 February and 1 March 1989.   It therefore could not be maintained that in conducting the preliminary investigation following the applicant’s complaint the public prosecutor had not effectively carried out an investigation or that he had been inactive or lacking in diligence. Lastly, it had not been disputed that the Basse-Terre Indictment Division, once seised of the applicant’s complaint and application to join the proceedings as a civil party, had taken numerous steps to establish the facts and had done so with meticulous care.   As to the allegation of violence committed on the applicant when he attempted to escape from the police station   The Court pointed out that the applicant had not denied having attempted to escape. Furthermore, it was apparent from the records of questioning on 29 and 30 September 1988 that the applicant acknowledged that he had “resisted” and “jostled” the police officers while attempting to escape. It was also apparent from the record of the applicant’s interview on 28   February 1989 that he acknowledged “having put up some resistance” to the policemen who were attempting to hold him back. Furthermore, it was not apparent from the evidence given on 1 March 1989 by Dr Thomas, who examined the applicant while he was in police custody, that the applicant had been beaten. Nor was it apparent from the medical certificate drawn up by Dr Kéclard that signs of blows had been noted by him.   The Court consequently considered, like the Commission, that it had not been shown that the force used during the intervention had been excessive or disproportionate.   There had accordingly been no violation of Article 3 as to the force used against the applicant during his attempted escape.   As to the allegations of ill-treatment by police officers after the applicant’s attempted escape   The Court accordingly considered that no evidence had been put forward during the proceedings before the Convention institutions that called in question the findings of the Basse-Terre Indictment Division or substantiated the applicant’s allegations before the Commission or the Court. It observed, in particular, that the applicant had been unable to give a precise description of the security cell in which he alleged that he had been chained up during the night.   The Court was accordingly of the opinion, as the Commission had been, that the applicant’s allegations as to the treatment to which he had been subjected after the first doctor’s visit late in the afternoon of 29 September 1988 had not been substantiated sufficiently precisely and sufficiently consistently to enable the Court to hold that there had been a violation of Article   3.   There had consequently been no violation of Article 3 in the instant case.   Article 6 § 1   The Government reiterated before the Court the preliminary objection that they had already raised before the Commission, namely that the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.   The Court noted that the objection had already been examined by the Commission, which had decided to dismiss it. The Court, which saw no reason to depart from the Commission’s reasoning, dismissed it likewise.   The Court noted, as the Commission had done, that in the instant case the proceedings had lasted more than seven years merely for the investigation of the applicant’s criminal complaint and application to join the proceedings as a civil party. It also noted that it had taken nearly two years to appoint the President of the Basse-Terre Indictment Division to investigate the complaint, the judicial authorities having earlier wrongly taken the view that an application to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party could not be made in respect of the matters in issue.   Lastly, the Court considered that the judicial authorities were under a duty to show special diligence in investigating a complaint lodged by an individual alleging that he had been subjected to violence by police officers. Even if, in particular, the Basse-Terre Indictment Division had carried out a particularly thorough and meticulous investigation, the necessary diligence had not overall been shown in the case.   The Court consequently held that such a length of time could not be considered reasonable within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 41   The applicant sought compensation for pecuniary and professional damage sustained as a result of his having been held in police custody, but made no quantified claim. He also sought the sum of FRF 350,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   The Court could not perceive any causal link between the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and any pecuniary damage that the applicant might have sustained. The applicant’s claims under that head therefore had to be dismissed.   On the other hand, the Court held that the applicant had sustained definite non-pecuniary damage on account of the length of the proceedings in issue. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41, it awarded him FRF 60,000 under that head. It also awarded him FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses.   Judge Greve expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.