Information Note on the Court’s case-law 195
April 2016
Cazan v. Romania - 30050/12
Judgment 5.4.2016 [Section IV]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Ill-treatment of lawyer representing client at police station: violation
Article 5
Article 5-1
Deprivation of liberty
Lawyer held in office in police station for less than ten minutes: no violation
Facts – The applicant, a lawyer, accompanied one of his clients to a police station in order to seek information on the content of a criminal file against the client. According to the applicant, an argument broke out with a police officer, who locked him in an office for about ten minutes in order to force him to sign a record of their interview, and then twisted his finger while attempting to prevent him from using his mobile telephone. The state of his finger was noted by a doctor, but his criminal complaint was dismissed on account of the lack of definite evidence of the police officer’s criminal liability.
Law
Article 3: The Court has already emphasised the importance of the role played by lawyers in the functioning of justice. Accordingly, the police must respect that role and avoid interfering unduly with their work or subjecting them to any form of intimidation or harassment (see paragraph 10 of the European Code of Police Ethics and the explanatory memorandum thereto). That obligation applies particularly to the protection of lawyers acting in an official capacity against ill-treatment.
In its judgment in the case of Bouyid v. Belgium [GC] (23380/09, 28 September 2015, Information Note 188), the Court reiterated that the authorities bore the burden of proof in respect of events occurring while an individual was under the control of the police or of a similar authority. That principle is applicable even where, as in the present case, the applicant attended the police station of his own volition, in his capacity as a lawyer. Consequently, it was incumbent on the authorities to provide the relevant proof.
The applicant provided a forensic report certifying that he had suffered a sprain to his left ring finger that had necessitated between five and seven days of medical treatment. Apart from the bare statements by the police officer in question, the Government provided no evidence capable of casting doubt on the version of events consistently presented by the applicant, to the effect that the police officer had twisted his finger while attempting to remove his mobile telephone. Given the major deficiencies in the investigation, it was impossible to conclude that the police officer’s statement was reliable merely because the investigation failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the Court deemed that it had been sufficiently established that the applicant had suffered a sprain to his left ring finger during his attendance at the police station.
The minimal severity threshold for the applicability of Article 3 had indeed been attained: inasmuch as the doctors had recommended continuing the applicant’s medical treatment for between five and seven days, the applicant’s injury had not been superficial.
Even supposing that the applicant had shown disrespect to the police officer, he had not behaved in any violent manner necessitating the use of physical force.
These factors are sufficient to conclude that there was degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also unanimously found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3.
Article 5 § 1: The applicant affirmed that he had been locked up in a police officer’s office in order to force him to sign a record of the interview against his will.
Even supposing that the police officer in question had acted as the applicant claimed, the parties agreed that the impugned situation had not lasted more than ten minutes. Even though the Court had previously held that the concept of deprivation of liberty can apply even where the measure in question was of short duration, it considered that in the particular circumstances of the case the applicant had not been “deprived of his liberty” given that he had attended the police station voluntarily and had been able to leave very shortly after the incident of which he complained.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 11,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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