CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   647 16.12.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KMETTY v. HUNGARY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Kmetty v. Hungary (application no. 57967/00). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,700 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,300 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ágoston Kmetty, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Budapest. He is a trader licensed to work at Budapest Market Hall.   On 22 December 1998, following a bomb alert, the police ordered everyone inside the market hall to evacuate the building. The applicant and several others refused to comply with the police’s instructions. After trying to persuade them to leave, the officers decided to escort the applicant to the police station, believing him to be responsible for the refusal to obey police orders.   The applicant asserts that the police officers grabbed him in such a way that he fell to the ground, whereas the Government maintain that he threw himself on the floor. He was led outside the building, handcuffed and forced into a police car before being driven to the Budapest IX district police station; he states that he was hit by a police officer during the journey. As the applicant had bruises on his face and wrists on arriving at the police station, a doctor was called. The applicant did not mention to the doctor that he had been ill-treated.   The applicant asserts that he was taken to the basement of the police station, where at least four police officers repeatedly beat him; he was subsequently placed in a cell for about three hours before being released. That evening and the following day, he underwent medical examinations at the National Institute of Traumatology and the Central Institute of Stomatology.   After the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint alleging ill-treatment and unlawful detention, the Investigation Office heard evidence from him, his relatives and a number of witnesses. In a medical report drawn up in March 1999 at the authorities’ request, it was stated that three of the applicant’s incisors had become loose and that he had bruising on his wrists and stomach.   Finding that it was impossible to determine whether the applicant’s injuries had resulted from the resistance he had offered to the police, the Investigation Office discontinued the proceedings.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 December 1999 and declared partly admissible on 25   March 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the treatment to which he had been subjected by the police officers and of the lack of an effective investigation into their actions.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court noted that only some of the injuries alleged by the applicant had been corroborated by a forensic medical expert, but those injuries were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment for the purposes of Article 3. The Court therefore had to ascertain whether the State should be held responsible for the injuries.   Alleged ill-treatment by the police Since it had not been not disputed by the medical expert or the Government that violence had been inflicted on the applicant on 22 December 1998, it was fair to assume that his injuries had been sustained in connection with his detention at the police station.   The Court noted that certain witnesses had stated that the applicant had been dragged outside the market hall by the police. However, according to the medical expert, such actions would have resulted in different injuries from those observed on the applicant. Furthermore, the witness statements had remained inconclusive as to whether the applicant had thrown himself to the ground or been pushed to the ground by the police officers when he had been apprehended, and none of the witnesses had said that they had seen police officers hitting him. Lastly, the medical opinion obtained by the authorities did not appear to support the applicant’s allegations that he had repeatedly been hit while in the police car and while in custody.   The Court found it impossible to establish on the evidence before it whether or not the applicant’s injuries had been caused by the police’s exceeding the force necessary to overcome his resistance to a lawful police measure, either while immobilising him and taking him to the police station or during his time in custody.   Adequacy of the investigation The Court considered, however, that, taken together, the medical evidence, the applicant’s testimony and the fact that he had been detained for more than three hours at the police station gave rise to a suspicion that he might have been ill-treated by the police.   The Court reiterated that where an individual raised an arguable claim that he had been seriously ill-treated by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, the authorities were under an obligation to carry out an effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. In the applicant’s case, the authorities had indeed opened an investigation following his complaint, but the Court doubted whether it had been effective and sufficient.   The Court found it regrettable that the doctor who had examined the applicant after he was taken into police custody had apparently not been interviewed during the investigation.   The authorities had merely obtained a medical opinion, which for obvious reasons had not addressed the question whether or not the applicant’s injuries had been present on his arrival at the police station. The Court also noted that when giving evidence, the applicant had been shown photographs from which he had identified two of the police officers but was not shown the photograph of a third officer allegedly involved. In addition, the police officers suspected of the assault did not appear to have been questioned during the investigation. The Court considered that this inexplicable shortcoming in the proceedings had deprived the applicant of any opportunity to challenge the suspects’ version of the events. In those circumstances, in the absence of a thorough and effective investigation, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.