Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Noi cazuri CEDO (update) privitoare la Romania

Asa cum am anuntat acum citeva zile, azi CEDO a anuntat mai multe decizii, printre care si una in care este implicata Romania (deciziile nu sint inca finale, dar aceasta nu inseamna ca vor fi modificate), decizie care de altfel era de asteptat sa fie in sensul in care a fost data (o trecem si pe aceasta la capitolul "reusite guvernare".

Ca de obicei, voi reda sub caz comunicatul in engleza al grefei:

1. Croitoru v. Romania (no. 54400/00)
Violare a Articolului 6 § 1; Violare a Articolului 1 al Protocolui No. 1

The applicant, Viorel Croitoru, is a Romanian national, born in 1929 and living in Bucharest.

He complained about the Romanian authorities’ failure to enforce two final judgments in his favour concerning the restitution of land. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

De asemenea, grefa (re)publica in detaliu cazul:

BARBU ANGHELESCU v. ROMANIA(textul integral este disponibil totusi numai in franceza)

The European Court of Human Rights has today(pe 5 Oct) notified in writing a judgment[1] in the case of Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania (application no. 46430/99).

The Court held unanimously:

·that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of degrading treatment); and

·that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an adequate and effective inquiry by the authorities into the treatment complained of.

Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.

(The judgment is available only in French.)

1. Principal facts

The applicant, Barbu Anghelescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Turcinesti (Romania).

The facts are disputed between the parties.

The applicant asserted that on 15 April 1996 he had been arrested at the wheel of his car after being pulled over by a police patrol. A dispute with the police officers had ensued and one of them, B., had accused him of being “blind drunk”, insulted him, strangled him with his scarf and struck him.

The Romanian Government submitted that the applicant had attempted to evade a measurement of his blood alcohol level and tried to run off. Becoming aggressive, he had caused an altercation in the course of which both he and the police officers had been injured.

Mr Anghelescu was arrested and placed in police custody. Samples were taken at the Târgu-Jiu hospital to determine his blood alcohol level. On the following day criminal proceedings were instituted against him for undermining the authority of a public servant and refusing to provide biological samples, and the public prosecutor remanded him in custody for 30 days. He was released on bail on 25 April 1996.

It appears from a medical report of 17 April 1996 drawn up at the request of the public prosecutor’s office that the applicant had a number of lesions, mainly around the neck. He had three bruises on the left side of his neck, one of which was covered by a graze, three bruises and a graze on the right side of his neck, a graze over his left collar bone and another on his forehead. The report said that these injuries necessitated four to five days’ of medical treatment.

At first instance Mr Anghelescu was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for undermining the authority of a police officer and a road traffic offence. However, on 18 October 2001 Piteşti Court of Appeal acquitted him after noting that eye-witnesses had given evidence that the applicant had been assaulted by B. and ruling that, given the improper conduct of the police officers, he could not be criticised for trying to get away from them.

In the meantime, in May 1996, Mr Anghelescu had lodged a complaint against the police officers concerned. In January 1998 the Craiova military prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the proceedings against B. (scoaterea de sub urmărire penală) and found that the other officer had no case to answer. It expressed the view that the police had not intended to assault the applicant but had attempted to prevent him making off. The Timişoara military tribunal upheld an appeal by the applicant against that decision, found that the criminal investigation was incomplete and remitted the case to the Craiova military prosecutor’s office with an indication of the enquiries still to be carried out. After interviewing the accused police officers the military prosecutor’s office discontinued the case against them in September 2002. It appears from the investigation file that no subsequent investigative steps have been taken in the case.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 March 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 2 December 2003.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:

Jean-Paul Costa (French), President,
András Baka (Hungarian),
Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian),
Karel Jungwiert (Czech),
Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian),
Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges,

and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment[2]


Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the treatment inflicted by the police at the time of the roadside stop check.

Decision of the Court

The allegation of ill-treatment

The Court noted that Piteşti Court of Appeal had held that the applicant had been assaulted by the police, whose conduct had been improper, and had accordingly acquitted him. On the other hand, the investigations conducted by the military prosecutor’s office against the police officers had led to a radically different conclusion, in that it had ruled that the police officers had not intended to assault the applicant. That finding had been rejected by the Timişoara military tribunal, which asked for additional investigative steps to be taken, but in spite of that no further enquiries had been carried out and the case had been discontinued.

Consequently, the Court could not accept the conclusions set out in the discontinuation order issued by the military prosecutor’s office in September 2002. Having regard to the material in its possession, it considered that the police officers concerned had assaulted the applicant first, although the use of force had not been made necessary by his conduct. It further considered that there was no convincing reason why it should disagree with the findings of the Court of Appeal.

The Court therefore considered that Mr Anghelescu had undergone treatment contrary to Article 3. He had suffered light injuries which had not had serious or lasting after-effects on his health; the facts he had complained of therefore constituted degrading treatment and the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.

The adequacy of the investigations conducted by the Romanian authorities

The Court noted in the first place that there was room for doubt as to the independence of the military prosecutors who had conducted the inquiry in respect of the police officers, in view of the national regulations in force at the material time. They were serving officers, as were the police, and were at the material time part of the military structure based on the principle of hierarchical subordination.

Moreover, the Court was particularly struck by the fact that the military prosecutor’s office had taken no account of the indications given by the Timişoara military tribunal when requesting that it carry out further investigations.

That being so, the Court considered that the Romanian authorities had not conducted a thorough and effective inquiry into the applicant’s allegation that the police officers had inflicted ill-treatment on him. It accordingly concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account also.

Fara legatura cu Romania, 2 cazuri interesante din Ucraina care ii vor interesa in mod sigur pe cei care practica dreptul muncii:

Bakay, Leschova, Yemets, Voloshyna, Semak and Lytvynenko v. Ukraine (no. 67647/01)
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 13

Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 41984/98)-(victima a accidentului de la Cernobil/ pensie speciala de asigurari sociale-acordare)
Violations of Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1