Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 112
October 2008
Kyriakides v. Cyprus - 39058/05
Judgment 16.10.2008 [Section I]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Failure by Supreme Court to give adequate explanation for reversing an award of compensation for damage caused to police officers’ integrity and reputation by allegations of torture: violation
[This summary also covers the Judgment of the case Taliadorou and Stylianouv. Cyprus, no. 39627/05 , 16 October 2008]
Facts: In 1992 the applicants, who were senior officers in the Cypriot police force, were prosecuted for their alleged involvement in the ill-treatment and torture of suspects. However, the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case and they were acquitted. Subsequently, the Ministerial Council appointed an independent investigating commission to examine the matter further. The commission found that Mr Taliadorou and Mr Stylianou had used torture against certain suspects and that, as their commanding officer, Mr Kyriakides was guilty of negligence. On the basis of the commission's findings, all three applicants were dismissed from the police force in 1996 in a decision that was widely reported in the national press. The applicants challenged the legality of that decision in the Supreme Court, which found that their constitutional rights had been violated in that there had been breaches of the non bis in idem rule and the presumption of innocence and that they had effectively been dismissed without a trial or disciplinary proceedings. After being reinstated in their former posts in December 1997 the applicants brought proceedings for compensation and were awarded damages by a district court for the injury they had sustained to their psychological and moral integrity and reputation as a result of the decision to dismiss them. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed that award after finding that the “moral damage did not constitute a direct consequence of the annulled administrative act”.
Law: Article 8 – The applicants’ complaint concerned the protection of their moral and psychological integrity and of their reputation and so fell within the scope of this provision. The case was best analysed as concerning the State’s positive obligations to guarantee effective respect for private life by its legislative, executive and judicial authorities. The district court had found that significant injury, with severe defamatory consequences, had been caused to the applicants’ moral and psychological integrity through their dismissal. Although the Supreme Court did not explicitly depart from or overrule that finding, it observed that the moral damage sustained by the applicants had not emanated from the annulled decision to dismiss them and so was not covered by the provision of domestic law under which their claim had been made. No reason was provided for that conclusion. Accordingly, while it was not the Court’s role to interpret the Constitutional provision under which the applicants had sought compensation for the injury to their integrity and reputation, the Court found that the Supreme Court had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the reversal of the award of moral damages and noted that the absence of a comprehensive assessment as regards a matter affecting the applicants’ Article 8 rights was not consonant with an acceptable margin of appreciation. There had therefore been a breach of the State’s procedural obligations.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 2 (case of Taliadorou & Stylianou) – The Supreme Court had not made any express or implied indication which undermined the applicants’ innocence and acquittal. Although it had reversed the moral damages award made by the district court, it had not linked that reversal to any suspicion that the applicants had in fact been guilty of the offences of which they had been acquitted, but had instead relied conclusively on the issue of causation.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 5,000 awarded to Mr Kyriakides in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mr Taliadorou and Mr Stylianou made no claim in respect of 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