CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 octobre 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .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. October 1998 Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria - 24760/94 Judgment 28.10.1998 Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Alleged ill-treatment by police: no violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-law Information Note summaries.] I.   EVENTS OF AND FOLLOWING 19 SEPTEMBER 1992 A.   Preliminary objections 1.   Alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies – Having exhausted all available remedies within criminal justice system without obtaining prosecution of police officers alleged to have ill-treated him, applicant not required to attempt to obtain redress by bringing civil action for damages. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). 2.   Alleged abuse of process – No evidence of abuse of right of petition. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits 1.   Article 3 of the Convention (a)   Alleged ill-treatment by police – Impossible to establish on basis of available evidence whether or not applicant’s injuries caused by police as alleged. Conclusion : no violation based on allegation of ill-treatment by police (eight votes to one). (b)   Adequacy of investigation – Where individual raises arguable claim to have been ill-treated in breach of Article 3, that provision read in conjunction with Article 1 requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. Conclusion : violation based on failure to carry out effective official investigation (unanimously). 2.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention – Applicant alleged that any civil action for damages brought by him in respect of alleged ill-treatment by police would have been stayed under Article 182(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure – case-law submitted to Court indicated that civil courts not bound by decision of prosecuting authorities to terminate criminal investigation. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). 3.   Article 13 of the Convention – Where individual has arguable claim to have been ill-treated in breach of Article 3, notion of effective remedy entails, in addition to thorough and effective investigation as required also by Article 3, effective access for complainant to investigatory procedure and payment of compensation where appropriate. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   EVENTS OF AND SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 1995 A.   Preliminary objections 1.   Alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies – Applicant made numerous requests for his release to prosecuting authorities and Shoumen District Court. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). 2.   Alleged abuse of process – No evidence of abuse of process. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits 1.   Article 3 of the Convention – Court can examine under Article 3 complaint about conditions of detention raised under Article 5 § 1 – must assess conditions taken as a whole – not established conditions sufficiently severe to reach Article 3 level. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). 2.   Article 5 § 1 of the Convention – Applicant detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence – no evidence detention unlawful under Bulgarian law. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). 3.   Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (a)   Right to be brought promptly before judge or “other officer” – Investigator, whose decisions could be overturned by prosecutor, not sufficiently independent. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)   Right to trial within reasonable time or release pending trial – Applicant detained pre-trial for approximately two years – national authorities not unreasonable in fearing he might reoffend – during one year virtually no action was taken in connection with investigation – authorities did not act with required diligence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). 4.   Article 5 § 4 of the Convention – Applicant unable to have continuing lawfulness of pre-trial detention determined by a court on more than one occasion – no oral hearing held on that occasion. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). 5.   Article 25 § 1 of the Convention – Two of applicants questioned by police or prosecuting authorities about application to Commission leading them to deny having made any application in sworn declaration – application included serious allegations of misconduct on part of same authorities – at time of questioning, first applicant detained on remand within control of prosecuting authorities – in all the circumstances, questioning amounted to improper pressure. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Non-pecuniary damage: specified sum awarded to first applicant. Costs and expenses: awarded in full. Conclusion : respondent State ordered to pay specified sums to applicants (unanimously).   © 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