SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36601/16
Valeri MATVEEV
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 April 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 36601/16) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18 June 2016 by a Moldovan national, Mr Valeri Matveev (“the applicant”), who was born in 1987 and lives in Bălți, and was represented before the Court by Ms A. Procopciuc, a lawyer practising in Răuțel;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 3 of the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the use of force by the police against the applicant during his arrest and the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.
2. On 19 May 2012 the police stopped the applicant’s car, in which he was travelling as a passenger, near a petrol station. The police asked to see a driving licence and the car registration documents. After a verbal exchange between the applicant, the driver, another passenger and the police officers, the latter forced the applicant to get into the police car. Upon his arrival at the police station, the applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police and that his leather jacket had been torn. At the police station on 20 May 2012, a prosecutor found the applicant guilty of insubordination towards police orders and sentenced him to a fine. The applicant was released from custody the same day and did not appeal against that decision.
3. On 21 May 2012 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found a 3 cm x 3 cm bruise on his right arm, pain in the right and left sides of his back and concussion. A forensic medical report of 31 May 2012 found a 2 cm x 1.5 cm bruise on the right arm and three bruises measuring 2 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the back, and classified them as minor injuries.
4. The applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment by the police was dismissed as ill-founded on 15 June 2012. The prosecutor concluded that the use of force during the arrest had been lawful because the applicant had resisted the police officers’ request to get into the police car. An appeal by the applicant was granted and on 30 October 2012 a criminal investigation was initiated.
5. The investigating authorities questioned all the passengers who had been in the car, the police officers who had carried out the applicant’s arrest and the witnesses at the petrol station. They also cross-examined the police officers and the passengers who had been in the car and studied the two medical reports on the nature of the bodily injuries suffered and a forensic report of the torn jacket, as well as the video footage recorded in the police car and at the police station. On 30 September 2014 the prosecutor closed the investigation. He concluded that the applicant had resisted the arrest and that force had been used against him only in order to get him into the police car, that no force had been used in the car or subsequently, and that the use of force had been lawful and proportionate.
6. In 2015 the first instance court set aside the prosecutor’s decision on the ground that the legal classification had been incorrect. On 30 July 2015 the prosecutor closed the investigation again on the same grounds as before but corrected the legal classification of the alleged offence. On 29 December 2015 the applicant was officially served with a court decision upholding the prosecutor’s decision with final effect.
7. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police officers and that the domestic investigation into his ill-treatment complaint had been ineffective.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
8. It was not disputed by the parties that the applicant’s car was stopped by the police officers and that, following an exchange between the police officers and the passengers of the car, the applicant was pushed into the police car and taken to the police station.
9. The criminal investigation established that force had been used only for the purpose of getting the applicant into the police car. The applicant submitted that he had been pushed into the police car without warning. However, the video footage submitted by the Government, undisputed by the applicant, depicted the police officers requesting the car passengers, including the applicant, to get into the police car in order to continue the conversation at the police station and the passengers continuing to argue.
10. The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in the police car by two police officers were not confirmed and the video footage submitted by the Government, undisputed by the applicant, depicted the applicant sitting in the back seat of the police car, with a police officer to his right and one of the car passengers to his left, speaking on the telephone with his mother about being ill-treated by the police and about his jacket being torn.
11. Although there is no video footage of the moment when the applicant was pushed into the police car, the Court finds nothing in the case file or in the applicant’s submissions which could enable it to question the findings of the investigation that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted in the circumstances described above. In view of the nature and location of the applicant’s injuries, there is likewise no reason to doubt the assessment of the domestic authorities, which established that the applicant’s injuries must have been inflicted by the police officers’ holding his arms tightly and pushing him into the car. The Court concludes that, while the applicant suffered several injuries as a result of the incident of 19 May 2012, in the circumstances of this case, the use of force against him cannot be held to have gone beyond what was made strictly necessary by his own conduct.
12. As regards the alleged lack of an effective investigation, the Court notes that in response to the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment, the domestic authorities carried out a full-fledged criminal investigation (contrast Ciorap v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 5), no. 7232/07, §§ 58‑62, 15 March 2016) and took all the steps necessary to verify the applicant’s accusations (see paragraph 5 above). The judicial authorities reviewed the material gathered in connection with investigation. The Court discerns nothing in the material in its possession to suggest that the domestic authorities’ approach in the present case lacked promptness, expeditiousness or thoroughness. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the investigation into the applicant’s complaint of ill‑treatment during his arrest was effective.
13. The Court therefore considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention in both its substantive and procedural limbs is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2022.
Hasan Bakırcı Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President