CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juillet 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 66 July 2004 Matko v. Slovenia (dec.) - 43393/98 Decision 8.7.2004 [Section III] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Alleged ill-treatment by police during arrest – subsequent conviction for “obstruction of police officer in the course of his duties”: admissible The applicant alleges that in April 1995 he was driving through a city centre when two police cars overtook him and forced him to stop. He claims to have been tied up, beaten, threatened and taken to a police station for having failed to stop his car. The police dispute this version of the events, and claim that the applicant refused to stop his vehicle for a routine check. As he then attempted to escape, they were obliged to handcuff him and knock him down in the process. About four hours after his arrest the applicant was released and went to a hospital, where he stayed overnight and part of the next day. The medical reports drawn up indicated the applicant had suffered several injuries (right eye, nose, left shoulder, thorax, right ear, left thigh, and a presumed fracture of the right temporal bone). Several documents and newspaper clippings in the file indicate that the arrest was part of a larger-scale action undertaken by the police against a criminal syndicate. In May 1995, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against unidentified police officers, which was dismissed by the public prosecutor. The same day, the prosecutor requested the opening of a judicial investigation against the applicant, on the basis of proceedings which the police had instituted against him in April 1995. The applicant was initially acquitted of the charge of “attempting to obstruct a public officer in the course of his duties”, but the judgment was subsequently overturned and the applicant was convicted on this count in a final decision in May 2001. He did not appeal on points of law. Admissible under Articles 3, 5 and 6 (length of proceedings). The Government’s preliminary objections on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and compliance with the six month rule were joined to the merits.   © 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