CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 juin 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32AFAD20 { width:26.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sAD66F3FB { width:10.59pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     327   19.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE CASE OF R. L. AND M.-J. D. v. FRANCE   Thursday 19 June 2003 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicants   The case concerns an application (no. 44568/98) brought by 2 French nationals, Mr R.L. and Ms M.-J.D., who were born in 1950 and 1959 and live in Paris and La Varenne (France) respectively.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the police’s entry into the restaurant belonging to the applicants and the first applicant’s arrest and subsequent deprivation of liberty. The police intervened because of a dispute between the applicants and the owners of the neighbouring restaurant over the use of an emergency exit.   On the evening of 2 August 1993 three men in plain clothes entered the applicants’ restaurant by the emergency exit. After stating that they were police officers and producing identification to that effect, they gestured to the applicants to join them outside the restaurant. The applicants refused to follow them and the second applicant attempted to take photographs as evidence of the incident. An altercation ensued. The parties’ accounts differ, particularly as regards the events following the police officers’ entry into the restaurant and the origin of the swellings and bruises subsequently observed on the applicants’ bodies.   The first applicant was arrested and taken away in a police van which had been waiting in front of the restaurant. Over the next 13 hours he was taken to four different places: two police stations, a hospital and the psychiatric wing of the Paris police headquarters, where the evidence relating to his detention – from 4.15 a.m. until 11 a.m. – remains contradictory.   On the following day the applicants were examined by two doctors, who drew up medical certificates and declared them unfit to work for two weeks and three weeks.   On 18 October 1993 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint alleging “unlawful or wrongful arrest and imprisonment, infringement of freedom, wounding with intent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm resulting in total unfitness for work for more than eight days, with the additional factor that the assault was carried out by senior police officers and their assistants in the performance of their duties, and abuse of a position of authority”. In 1996 the investigating judge ruled that there was no case to answer. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully.   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain of the police officers’ actions during their intervention, arguing that such actions amounted to degrading treatment and humiliation in front of their customers. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) and (e) (right to liberty and security), the first applicant further submits that his arrest by the police officers was unlawful. Relying on Article 5 § 5, he also complains that he was unable to obtain compensation at national level for the damage he sustained as a result of his deprivation of liberty, which he claims was unlawful.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 20 March 2003.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Georg Ress (German), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) , Riza Türmen (Turkish) , Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian) , substitute judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Antoine Buchet , Agent , Gilles Dutertre , Olivia Wingert and Frédérique Doublet , Counsel ;   Applicants:   Françoise Guery , Counsel .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.