Communicated on 16 September 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 70040/13
Vasile Victor STANCIU
against Romania
lodged on 1 November 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasile Victor Stanciu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bucharest. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Incidents on 11 December 2011
On 11 December 2011 one of the applicant’s neighbours called the police to complain about the fact that the applicant had stored personal items in the common space of their apartment building.
At 6 pm on 11 December 2011 two police agents arrived at the applicant’s door and asked for his identification papers without giving their names or informing him on the purpose of their visit. The applicant asked about their purpose but they did not answer. For that reasons, the applicant refused to present his papers, telling the police agents to come “some other time” (altădată).
The police agents immobilised the applicant, threw him on the ground and then handcuffed him. Noting the escalation of events, the applicant’s partner searched for his identification papers and handed them all to the police agents: identity card, pension benefits slip and legitimation of former fighter in the 1989 Revolution.
The police agents took the paper without looking at them and took the applicant to the Police Station No. 19 for identification.
At the police station the applicant was hit with the fists, feet and truncheons. The pain was so intense that the applicant soiled himself. During the beating, the applicant’s mobile phone and photo camera were destroyed and his clothes were torn out.
When the beating ended, the police agents checked the applicant’s papers and then left him alone for fifteen minutes in a room. When they returned they informed him that they were leaving on a mission. After being again left alone, the applicant managed to find the agent on duty at the police headquarters (ofiţerul de serviciu) to ask permission to use the toilet. The police agent sent him home to clean up.
The applicant went home and then returned to the police section to recover his identity papers.
On 16 December 2011 the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor at Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute. The medical report drafted on 16 December 2011 was communicated to the applicant on 4 January 2012. It noted that the applicant showed traces of violence on his wrists, arms and legs as a consequence of being hit with a hard object; that he accused chest pains; and that the injuries could have dated from 12 December 2011 and needed four to five days of medical care.
Two weeks after the incident, the applicant received by mail an offence report (process verbal de contravenţie) drafted by the police agents on 23 December 2011 in his absence, whereby he was fined 100 Romanian lei for “refusal to present data necessary for his identification”.
B. Criminal proceedings against the police agents
The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the two police agents, accusing them of unlawful deprivation of liberty, abusive investigation and torture. He requested compensation. The complaint was registered with the Police Station No. 19 on 13 January 2012. On 7 August 2012 the file was sent for investigations to the Internal Investigations Bureau from Bucharest General Department of Police (“DGPMB”). The investigators heard evidence from the two police agents who denied having inflicted any harm on the applicant. The agent on duty declared that he had not spoken at all to the applicant that night and had only seen him briefly when the agents brought him in, thus not having the time to see if he had been injured. Lastly, they heard evidence from the neighbour’s husband who declared that the police agents had not ill-treated the applicant when they arrived at his place.
On 12 November 2011 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided not to prosecute. Based on the evidence in the file, it decided that the injuries suffered by the applicant had been superficial and the use of force proportionate and needed for immobilising him and taking him to the police station.
The applicant objected. The decision was upheld on 22 March 2013 by the prosecutor-in-chief of the same prosecutor’s office.
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Bucharest County Court against the two decisions. He mainly argued that the investigation was superficial, that the conclusions of the investigation were based exclusively on the statements given by the two police agents who had aggressed him. He contested the prosecutor’s opinion that the injuries incurred had been superficial. He made reference to the Court’s case-law in the matter which required a plausible explanation for any traces of violence occurred when the victim was under police supervision. He also contested the proportionality of the police reaction, pointing out that he only refused verbally to show his identification and that the police agents could not claim or prove any traces of violence incurred by them during that intervention.
On 11 June 2013 the County Court dismissed the complaint and consequently upheld the prosecutors’ decisions. The decision was final.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subject to ill-treatment at the hands of police. He considers that the violence was unwarranted for, inflicted intentionally, with a view to punishing him and was disproportionate to his behaviour.
Under the same Article, he complains that the ensuing investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective. In particular, the evidence was gathered by police agents who belong to the same structure as the aggressors, thus not having any guarantee of independence in their undertakings. The prosecutor did not interview the parties or witnesses, but based his decision exclusively on evidence gathered by the police. Moreover, essential witnesses, such as his partner who had been present during the initial incidents, were not heard in the proceedings.
Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant argues that he has a right to an effective remedy but also to actively participate in the investigations. He considers that in practice he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy to complain with the courts about the alleged violation of Article 3.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
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?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy