CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mars 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 106 March 2008 Stoica v. Romania - 42722/02 Judgment 4.3.2008 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Racially motivated ill-treatment of a Roma minor by a police officer during an incident between officials and Roma and lack of effective investigation: violation   Article 14 Discrimination Racially motivated ill-treatment of a Roma minor by a police officer during an incident between officials and Roma and lack of effective investigation: violation   Facts : During a clash between officials and a group of Roma, the 14-year-old applicant, a Romanian national of Roma origin, was allegedly beaten by a police officer despite a warning that he had recently undergone head surgery. The Government denied this, claiming that villagers armed with bats had attacked the deputy mayor’s car. The applicant was taken to hospital the same evening. A subsequent medical report certified that he had bruises and grazes caused by a blunt instrument and thoracic concussion. Shortly afterwards he was declared severely disabled. Upon the investigation into the applicant’s criminal complaint, a military prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers involved as the evidence against them was insufficient, and concluded that that the conflict had not been of a racist nature. The villagers’ statements corroborating the applicant’s version of the events were disregarded as biased and unreliable. In the meantime the local police informed the military prosecutor that no report had been filed with a view to bringing criminal proceedings for insulting behaviour against the Roma involved in the incident because it was considered to be “pure Gypsy behaviour”. Law:   Article 3 – The degree of bruising found by the doctor indicated that the applicant's injuries, whether caused by the police or by someone else, were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article   3. It remained for the Court to consider whether the State should be held responsible in respect of those injuries. The applicant’s allegations were coherent and supported by the medical report drawn up after the incident and some witness testimonies. It was nonetheless true that the witnesses had given conflicting testimonies; all the officials and some of the passers-by had denied that any violence had occurred while all the villagers had stated the contrary. Lastly, the criminal investigation had concluded that the officers were not responsible for the injuries. There had been no official admission of any act of violence against the applicant. However, the Court was concerned about the effectiveness of that investigation. Firstly, although 20 to 30 villagers were present during the incident, only three had testified before the local police and five before the military prosecutor. On the other hand, all the police officers and public guards had given evidence. There was no explanation as to why the other villagers had not testified during the investigation. They had either not been called, or, as the applicant claimed, had been intimidated. In any event, the fact that they had not testified cast doubt on how thoroughly the police had investigated the case. Secondly, the prosecutor had not explained why the villagers’ statements would be less credible than those of the police officers, as all those involved could be considered equally biased. Moreover, the prosecutor's conclusion that the villagers were not present during the incident was contradicted by the evidence in the case. He had also only briefly examined the differences in the evidence concerning the beating of the applicant and had failed to address the common points in the statements, notably those which indicated that the applicant had sustained injuries all over his body. Thirdly, the fact that the police officers had not reported the Roma’s alleged insulting behaviour cast doubt on their version of events. Lastly, the investigators had merely exonerated the police officers and failed to identify those responsible for the applicant’s injuries, a serious failing given that the applicant was a minor at the time and severely disabled. Moreover, the applicable law at the relevant time had made the hierarchical and institutional independence of the military prosecutor doubtful. The Romanian authorities had therefore failed to conduct a proper investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, in violation of Article 3. Given those deficiencies, the Court also considered that Romania had not satisfactorily established that the applicant’s injuries had been caused otherwise than by the treatment inflicted on him by police officers and concluded that his injuries were the result of inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3. Conclusion : violation both under substantial and procedural limbs (unanimously). Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 – The dispute, as described by the villagers and, to a certain extent, as reported by the police officers, had not been racially neutral. Notably, one of the villagers had allegedly been asked whether he was “Gypsy or Romanian” and, at the deputy mayor’s request, had been beaten to teach him “a lesson”. Similarly, another villager’s dispute with the deputy mayor had at its core racist elements. The stereotypical remark made in the police report which had described the villagers’ alleged aggressive behaviour as “purely Gypsy” was further proof that the police officers were not racially neutral, either during the incident or throughout the investigation. The Court found no reason to consider that the attack on the applicant by the police officers had been removed from that racist context. It was therefore concerned by the ease with which the authorities had concluded that the incident had not been motivated by racism, relying solely on the statements by the police officers and by one other witness. Moreover, the prosecutor had considered only the villagers, who were mainly of Roma origin, to be biased in their statements, whereas he had fully integrated the police officers’ statements into his reasoning and conclusions. Neither had he addressed the “pure Gypsy” remark in the police report. Consequently, the authorities had ignored evidence of discrimination and the investigation had been racially biased. Given that finding, the Court considered that it was the Government’s responsibility to prove that there had been no racist motivation behind the incident at issue. Neither the prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation nor the Government could put forward any argument to show that the incident had been racially neutral. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that the police officers’ behaviour had clearly been motivated by racism. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. For more details, see Press Release no. 154. (see also Cobzaru v. Romania , n° 48254/99, in Information Note No. 99).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes