CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 octobre 2012

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 156 October 2012 Najafli v. Azerbaijan - 2594/07 Judgment 2.10.2012 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Freedom to receive information Ill-treatment by police of journalist attempting to report on a matter of public interest and inadequate investigation: violation   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Effective investigation Ill-treatment by police of journalist attempting to report on a matter of public interest: violations   Facts – The applicant, a journalist, was beaten with truncheons by the police while reporting on an unauthorised political demonstration which had been organised by opposition parties. The beating occurred during the dispersal of the demonstration, even though, according to the applicant, he had told the police officers he was a reporter. Subsequent to the events in question the applicant was diagnosed with significant injuries, including closed cranio-cerebral trauma, concussion and soft-tissue damage to the crown of the head. A criminal investigation was opened into how the applicant sustained his injuries but was suspended on the grounds that the officers responsible for his injuries could not be identified. Law – Article 3 (a)     Substantive aspect : The applicant had produced sufficiently strong and consistent evidence to establish at least a presumption that he had been beaten with truncheons by police officers during the dispersal of the demonstration, and the Government had not provided a convincing rebuttal of that presumption. It had not been shown that the recourse to physical force against the applicant had been made strictly necessary by his own conduct: he had not used violence against the police or posed a threat to them and no other reasons justifying the use of force had been shown. It had therefore been unnecessary, excessive and unacceptable. Given the applicant’s injuries, which proved that he had experienced serious physical and mental suffering, the minimum level of severity had been attained. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)     Procedural aspect : The investigation of the applicant’s claim of ill-treatment had fallen short of the requirements of Article   3. For example, there had been significant procedural delays and the investigation had not been handled with sufficient diligence. There were also serious doubts as to whether the applicant had been given effective access to the investigation or had been informed of all the procedural steps in a timely manner. Most problematic, however, was the question of the independence and impartiality of the investigation: the task of identifying those responsible for the applicant’s beating had been delegated to the same authority whose agents had allegedly committed the offence. The investigation had been suspended on inadequate grounds (an alleged inability to identify the police officers concerned). Lastly, the applicant had been deprived of the opportunity to effectively seek damages in civil proceedings, as he had been required to name specific police officers as defendants. That requirement had constituted an insurmountable obstacle, since the identification of those police officers was the task of the criminal investigation, which in the present case was ineffective and lacked independence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 10: The role of the press in imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest undoubtedly included reporting on opposition gatherings and demonstrations which was essential for the development of any democratic society. The applicant had, however, been prevented from reporting through physical ill-treatment and an excessive use of force. The Court could not accept that the police officers had been unable to determine that the applicant was a journalist, as he was wearing a badge and had explicitly stated his occupation. Nor was it relevant that, according to the Government, the officers had no actual intention to interfere with his journalistic activity: what mattered was that, despite clear efforts to identify himself as a journalist who was simply doing his job, the applicant had been subjected to treatment proscribed by Article   3. Accordingly, there had been an interference with his rights under Article   10. That interference was not justified as it was not shown convincingly by the Government that it was either lawful or pursued any legitimate aim. In any event, it clearly could not be considered to have been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.     © 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