THIRD SECTION
Application no. 2040/12
Mihai CHINEZ and Others
against Romania
lodged on 29 December 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Mr Mihai Chinez, Mr Marius Romeo Chinez and Mr Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1986, 1987 and 1985, respectively, and live in Bucharest.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 March 2008, the applicants, who are brothers, were involved in a violent incident involving several police officers and other third parties. The applicants were eventually taken to a police station in order to be questioned in respect of the said incident. On the same day, after they were heard by the police, the applicants were allowed to leave.
On 2 April, 3 June and 13 August 2008 the Bucharest Medical Forensic Institute, following the applicants’ request, issued three forensic reports. They held that the applicants had been examined on 18 March 2008 and that their bodies were covered in bruises, abrasions, hematomas and scars caused by electric devises. The forensic reports concluded that the applicants’ injuries could have been cause on 17 March 2008 by heating with and against hard surfaces and objects and required two to nine days of medical care.
On 4 July 2008 the applicants brought criminal proceedings with no civil claims against the police officers who were involved in the events of 17 March 2008 for abusive behaviour as well as unlawful arrest and abusive investigation. They claimed that on 17 March 2008 they had been beaten by three police squads prior and after they were taken to the police station, following an incident they had with a taxi driver.
By a final order of 30 June 2011 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the applicants against part of the police officers who participated to the events of 17 March 2008, in particular those officers who questioned the applicants after they were taken to the police station, on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed. It also disjoined the criminal investigation with regard to the remaining police officers. It held that following the incident, the applicants were restraint by police officers and were taken to the police station for identification and questioning as a car had been destroyed during the incident. By the time they reached the police station they were already showing traces of violence on their bodies. There was no evidence in the criminal investigation file that proved beyond reasonable doubt that the police officers who questioned the applicants at the police station, in particular S.A., F.L.C. and M.D.D. had acted violently against the applicants. In addition there was strong suspicion to believe that one of the applicants, in particular Mr Mihai Chinez, had hurt himself. Lastly, the applicants had not been unlawfully detained as they had been placed in police custody for questioning in respect of the events they were involved in and they were allowed to leave the same day after they were heard by the police.
The applicants appealed against the Prosecutor Office’s order of 30 June 2011 before the domestic courts. They argued inter alia that a taxi driver stated in a televised interview that the police officers had repeatedly hit the applicants with electric batons inside the police station and that two other witnesses, in particular I.S. and the applicants’ legal representative had witnessed the injuries suffered by them and had spoken to the officers about the incident.
By a final judgment of 20 October 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the Prosecutor Office’s order of 30 June 2011 and upheld it. It held that according to the evidence available to the criminal investigation file, in particular the applicants’ statements and the statements of the police officers present in the police station, it appeared that the injuries suffered by the applicants were caused prior to them entering the police station and the criminal investigation initiated in that regard was still pending before the domestic authorities in a separate criminal file.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 266 of the Romanian Criminal Code concerning unlawful arrest and abusive investigation provides inter alia that the placement in police custody is punishable by a prison sentence if it was carried out outside the rules established by domestic legislation.
Article 143 of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code on placement in police custody provides that the police can place an individual in police custody if there is reasonable suspicion that he had committed an unlawful act.
Excerpts from the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the crime of abusive behaviour, and from the Criminal Procedure Code with respect to the complaint against the prosecutor’s decisions, can be found in Toma v. Romania, no. 42716/02, §§ 25-27, 24 February 2009.
COMPLAINTS
1. Invoking Article 5 of the Convention the applicants complain that their placement in police custody following the events of 17 March 2008 was unlawful.
2. Relying expressly on Article 6 and in substance on Article 3 of the Convention the applicants complain that they were ill-treated by police officers on 17 March 2008 and that the investigation carried out in respect of their criminal complaint lodged against the said police officers was ineffective.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the alleged ill-treatment by the police on 17 March 2008?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to submit a copy of the files concerning the criminal investigations and the trials before the domestic courts with regard to the applicants’ complaint against the police officers that allegedly ill‑treated them on 17 March 2008.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy