Published on 15 September 2025
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 27757/22
Ligia-Gloria MUSTĂŢEA
against Romania
lodged on 3 June 2022
communicated on 29 August 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment suffered by the applicant at the hands of the police and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident.
On 9 November 2017 two police officers attended at the applicant’s property following a noise complaint from a neighbour. As the applicant’s partner allegedly became uncooperative, he was taken to the police station for identification, where the applicant joined them voluntarily.
The applicant alleges that, while at the police station, a police officer (T.C.) restrained and handcuffed her, during which she sustained a fractured ankle, a nosebleed, and bruises to her arms. She submitted closed‑circuit television (“CCTV”) footage showing her walking into the police station and later being carried out on a stretcher by paramedics, along with medical evidence that she required up to 75 days of medical treatment for the fractured ankle.
On various dates in 2017 and 2018 the applicant lodged several criminal complaints against the police officers on duty on 9 November 2017, including for unlawful deprivation of liberty, sexual assault, and torture.
On 21 November 2017 an in rem investigation was opened against all police officers who had been on duty on 9 November 2017.
On 10 December 2020 T.C. was indicted with one count of misconduct in public office (“purtare abuzivă”), under Articles 296 § (2) and 193 § (2) of the Criminal Code. By the same indictment, the investigation into the remaining allegations, including unlawful deprivation of liberty, was discontinued.
On 28 October 2021 the Cluj-Napoca District Court (“the District Court”) upheld the prosecutor’s decision of 10 December 2020 to discontinue the investigation into the remaining allegations. In respect of the alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty, the District Court found that witness statements, including those of the applicant and her partner, indicated that she had willingly accompanied the latter to the police station. It observed that, although the police should not have allowed her to accompany them, she had done so at her own request, and the tactical mistake of permitting this did not constitute a criminal offence. Thus, the District Court concluded that she had not been deprived of her liberty until “she arrived at the police station”. It further observed that the applicant had been inconsistent in her statements, noting that she had said both that she had asked the police officers to allow her to accompany them to the station, and, at other times, that one of the officers had grabbed her by the head or pushed her.
On 12 June 2024 the District Court, sitting as a first-instance court, convicted T.C. as charged and sentenced him to a criminal fine of 12,000 RON (approximately 2,400 EUR). T.C. was also ordered to pay the applicant 7,500 EUR in non-pecuniary damages.
According to the applicant, her appeal against the first-instance decision was scheduled to be heard on 24 November 2024.
Relying on both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the ill-treatment she allegedly suffered at the hands of police officers on 9 November 2017, and the lack of an effective investigation into those events. She further stated that, at the time she lodged the present application, the criminal proceedings against T.C. were still pending before the domestic courts.
Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant further complained that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty when she left her property on 9 November 2017, and that the police officers had prevented her from walking or “having control over her own person”. She stated that, upon arrival at the police station, she had been forcefully brought inside by one of the officers.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of the police on 9 November 2017, in breach of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the force used in respect of the applicant strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and §§ 100‑01, ECHR 2015)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the investigation by the domestic authorities satisfy the requirement of promptness under Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid, cited above, § 121)?
The parties are invited to provide the Court with a copy of the entire criminal file concerning the criminal proceedings against T.C. (criminal investigation, preliminary chamber, first instance and appeal courts).
3. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on 9 November 2017 (see, among others and mutatis mutandis, Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, §§ 84, 91‑94 and 101, 23 February 2012; Osypenko v. Ukraine, no. 4634/04, §§ 46‑49, 9 November 2010 and Duğan v. Türkiye, no. 84543/17, § 37, 7 February 2023)?