Information Note on the Court’s case-law 20
July 2000
Caloc v. France - 33951/96
Judgment 20.7.2000 [Section III]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Alleged ill-treatment in police custody and lack of effective investigation: no violation
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of criminal proceedings which the applicant joined as a civil party: violation
Facts: In September 1988 the applicant, a heavy plant driver by occupation, attended the police station (gendarmerie) to be interviewed in respect of a complaint lodged by his former employer, who suspected him of having sabotaged two bulldozers. He attempted to flee while being questioned, but was caught and immobilised by several police officers while he was struggling violently. Following this incident, Dr T. examined the applicant but found no external signs of violence; the applicant did not complain of any pain. During the ensuing questioning he admitted having attempted to flee and having resisted the police. He was then placed in a cell until the following day. Later in the course of his detention in custody, he admitted that he was guilty and again admitted having knocked the police officers over in his attempt to flee. The day after his release Dr K. examined him and found heavy bruising on his right shoulder, traces of being tightly bound on his wrists and lumbar injuries; he ordered the applicant to stay off work for one week, which was subsequently extended to twenty days. On 18 November 1988 the applicant complained that he had been beaten and injured. On 30 November 1988 the prosecution opened a preliminary investigation. A further complaint lodged against the applicant by another businessman, for damaging plant, also led to a preliminary investigation. The applicant was placed in custody and questioned by a police officer who had not been involved in his first period of detention; he admitted the facts of which he was accused. While being questioned about the circumstances of his first period of detention, he admitted having attempted to flee and having struggled violently when the police were attempting to overcome him. In the preliminary investigation concerning his own complaint, police from another company interviewed Dr K. and the applicant, who was again placed in detention. The applicant stated that he had not received any blows until he attempted to flee. Dr T. was also questioned, and reiterated that he had not noticed any suspicious external marks on the applicant. No further action was taken in respect of his complaint. He lodged another complaint, and this time applied to join the proceedings as party seeking civil damages. He claimed that the admissions made while he was first in custody had been obtained by ill-treatment after he had been examined by Dr T.; he claimed to have been kept on a chair with both arms held behind his back after the incident and then to have been taken to a cell where he was chained with his arms outspread until the following morning. His application to join the proceedings as party claiming civil damages was dismissed in the light, inter alia, of a medical examination which had been ordered and which did not establish that he had been the victim of violence while in custody. He appealed unsuccessfully against the order refusing to allow him to claim civil damages. The Court of Cassation, to which he had appealed, none the less quashed the judgment under appeal and remitted the case to the indictments division of a different court of appeal. By judgment of December 1994, and after a thorough investigation, the indictments division concluded that there was no serious charge against the police officers. It referred to the reasoning of the applicant, pointing out, first, that the lesions identified by Dr K. following his release from custody had not been noted by Dr T. after his attempted escape, and, second, that his refusal to admit the facts of which he was accused had given way during his detention in custody, which followed the first medical visit, to full admissions. The division none the less found that he had not referred to being kept in chains in the detention cell until some time later and that the statutory arrangement of such cells made such an accusation difficult to believe. Furthermore, the doctors interviewed had established that the type of injuries of which he complained might appear after a period had elapsed. Finally, he could have withdrawn his admissions after being released from custody but had not done so. This time the judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation.
Law: Article 3 – The ill-treatment alleged by the applicant was inflicted on him while he was in custody. It is not disputed that he attempted to flee from the police station or that he was taken back by force; on the other hand, the applicant claims to have been the victim of ill-treatment after that incident and throughout the whole period of his custody.
1. The lack of an effective investigation – a preliminary investigation was opened by the prosecution less then two weeks after the applicant lodged his simple complaint. The doctors who had examined the applicant while he was in custody and just after his release were interviewed and the applicant was interviewed on three occasions. Although it is regrettable that the authorities took advantage of the fact that the applicant was in custody to carry out those interviews, the first interview, which took place in the context of an investigation carried out following another complaint lodged against him, was carried out by a police officer who had not been present when he attempted to flee. Furthermore, during the next two interviews he was heard by police officers from a different brigade, and there is nothing to indicate that he was unable to speak freely. Last, it is not disputed that immediately the applicant lodged a complaint together with an application to join the proceedings as party claiming civil damages the indictments division carried out a thorough investigation. It cannot therefore be maintained that on the occasion of investigation carried out following the applicant’s complaint the authorities did not take effective action to carry out an investigation or that they showed inertia.
2. The allegations of violence against the applicant when he attempted to flee – the Government do not dispute the allegations of violence on that occasion. The certificate drawn up by Dr K. on the day after the applicant’ release from custody mentions heavy bruising on his right shoulder, traces of being tightly bound on his wrists and lumbar injuries. The subsequent medical reports did not diverge from those findings. Having regard to the applicant’s injuries in the present case, and mainly those to the right shoulder, his incapacity for work for twenty days was a necessary consequence of the particular characteristics of his occupation. However, the applicant did not deny having resisted the police officers or having struggled while trying to escape. Nor is it apparent from the examination carried out by Dr T. after the incident, or from the certificate drawn up by Dr K., that he was beaten. Therefore it has not been proved that the force employed was excessive or disproportionate.
3. The allegations of ill-treatment by the police following his attempt to flee – In its judgement of December 1994, the indictments division cast doubt on the applicant’s credibility owing to the inconsistencies in his statements concerning the course of his detention in custody, and in particular the belated references to the ill-treatment allegedly suffered in the detention cell. Furthermore, the fact that he did not complain of pain until the day following his release from custody did not necessarily mean that he had been the victim of ill-treatment between the time when he was examined by Dr T. and the time when he was released, since the doctors in question stated that the type of pain from which the applicant was suffering could appear after a period of time. Last, the applicant could have withdrawn his admissions but did not do so. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation. The applicant’s other allegations of ill-treatment found no support in the medical examinations, notably those carried out by Dr K. All in all, the applicant’s allegations do not appear to be based on evidence which has sufficient basis to be probative.
Conclusion: no violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 6 § 1 – The proceedings lasted more than 7 years solely as regards the investigation of the complaint together with an application to join the proceedings as civil party. The judicial authorities were under a particular duty to act diligently when they were investigating a complaint lodged by an individual as a result of violence allegedly committed against him by the law-enforcement agencies. Even though, in particular, the second indictments division dealing with the case carried out a thorough investigation, all in all total the requisite diligence was not observed.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant 60,000 French francs in respect of non-material harm and 10,000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy