003-3685357-4193688

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 156 (2011)   27.09.2011   Handcuffing man with hip arthritis to a tree   in police station courtyard was excessive   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Archip v. Romania (application   no. 49608/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment   and lack of effective investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned Mr Archip’s allegation that he had been taken to his local police   station and handcuffed to a tree for nearly three hours for complaining about a reduction   in his sickness benefit.   Principal facts   The applicant, Constantin Archip, is a Romanian national who was born in 1976 and lives   in Podoleni (Romania).   On 7 November 2005 Mr Archip was involved in an incident at Podoleni town hall during   which he complained about a reduction in his sickness benefit for coxarthrosis (arthritis   of the hip). Dissatisfied with the explanations given by the mayor and deputy mayor, he   ended up insulting those working at the town hall. As he could not be calmed down, the   mayor and deputy mayor took him to the local police station.   Mr Archip alleged that, once at the station, he had been handcuffed to a tree in the   courtyard for almost three hours in the cold and wet. The police station being located in   the centre of the village, he was in full view of anyone passing by. Informed of the   incident, reporters from the press and local televison also arrived on the scene and took   pictures. The local press published an article a few days later.   The same day the Chief of Police wrote up a report on the incident stating that he had   had to use force and handcuffs to prevent Mr Archip from deliberate self-harm. He stated   that he had not been handcuffed for any longer than 20-30 minutes and that he had   stayed close by at all times. A passer by later testified, however, that Mr Archip had   been alone and the police station closed on the day of the incident.   On 9 November 2005 Mr Archip lodged a criminal complaint against the Chief of Police as   well as the mayor. His complaint was ultimately dismissed in February 2008 on the   ground that the handcuffing in the police courtyard had been in accordance with the   applicable legislation. Mr Archip’s ensuing appeal on points of law was then dismissed in   April 2008.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   The Government acknowledged that Mr Archip had been handcuffed for one hour and 45   minutes but stated that it had been necessary on account of his aggressive behaviour.   Indeed, it was for such behaviour that Mr Archip had subsequently been convicted in   April 2007 of outrage against public morals and disturbance of public order.   Mr Archip claims that being kept outside for such a long time on a cold and wet   November day resulted in the worsening of his medical condition. This was confirmed in   January 2008 by a medical board which certified that he had a medium level disability.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Archip   complained that his handcuffing in the police courtyard for nearly three hours had been   gratuitous and humiliating. He also alleged that the ensuing investigation into his   complaint had been inadequate.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October   2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), PRESIDENT,   Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania),   Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia),   Ján Šikuta (Slovakia),   Luis López Guerra (Spain),   Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),   Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), JUDGES,   and also Santiago Quesada, SECTION REGISTRAR.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)   Ill-treatment   The Court considered that handcuffing Mr Archip to a tree in the clearly visible courtyard   of the police station in the very centre of the village had to have caused him feelings of   anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him beyond what was   reasonable; those feelings could only have been aggravated by the presence of the press   and local television. From the physical point of view, handcuffing someone in perfectly   good health – let alone someone suffering from coxarthrose – outdoors on a cold and   wet day in November could be intensely painful. Moreover, according to Article 36 of the   Romanian Police Act 2002, handcuffs should not be used on people, such as Mr Archip,   with a visible disability. Even if Mr Archip had refused to obey a police order to calm   down, the Court could not see how the domestic authorities could be satisfied that the   force used against him had not been excessive. It therefore concluded that Mr Archip   had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment for which Romania was   responsible, in violation of Article 3.   Investigation   The Court noted that the judicial authorities had concluded, without providing much   detail or carefully considering the actual circumstances of the incident, that Mr Archip’s   handcuffing had been lawful and necessary. In particular, the period of time that   Mr Archip had spent handcuffed was not clear – it varied between 20-30 minutes   according to the Chief police officer, one hour and 45 minutes according to the   Government and nearly three hours according to Mr Archip and several witnesses. Nor   was it clearly established whether there had been a police presence during that period of   time or whether Mr Archip had been left alone. Indeed, the courts’ conclusions had   mainly only been based on the Chief of Police’s report and statements given by police   officers and the mayor. No explanation was given as to why the police had not tried   other less extreme means to calm Mr Archip who did not in effect pose much of a threat.   The Court therefore found that the investigation into Mr Archip’s allegations had not   been thourough, adequate or effective, in further violation of Article 3.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that Romania was to pay Mr Archip 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non   pecuniary damage.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3