003-5076858-6250680

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 151 (2015)   05.05.2015   Judgments of 5 May 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   two Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Doiciu v. Romania (application no. 1454/09)*   The applicant, Anca Cătălina Doiciu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in   Bucharest.   The case concerned ill-treatment allegedly inflicted by the police and the authorities’ failure to meet   their obligation to conduct an effective investigation following the lodging of a criminal complaint.   On the evening of 3 January 2001, H.R.A, who was Ms Doiciu’s fiancé at the relevant time, and U.N.,   his cousin, were taken to a police station. H.R.A. had been arrested by the police following an   incident involving a taxi driver; Ms Doiciu was summoned to the police station in order to provide a   witness statement.   Ms Doiciu was struck by one of the four police officers present in the room.   On the following day she was examined by a doctor, who noted traumatic lesions requiring twelve to   fourteen days of medical treatment. On the same date she also lodged a criminal complaint for   wrongful conduct and asked to join the proceedings as a civil party.   Her complaint was transmitted to the Brasov military prosecutor’s office, which in turn asked the   police station in question to complete the investigation. Five police officers were questioned; they   denied any act of aggression against Ms Doiciu.   On 19 February 2002 charges of wrongful conduct were brought against one of the police officers   suspected of having struck Ms Doiciu. The police officer told the prosecutor that Ms Doiciu had   attacked him, and that he had merely defended himself. He admitted to having struck her. On   April 2002 the military prosecutor dropped the charges, on the ground that the facts were not   serious. He ordered the police officer in question to pay an administrative fine and acquitted the   other policemen. The case was sent back to the prosecutor’s office by a prosecutor at the High Court   of Cassation and Justice. On 14 November 2007 the prosecutor’s office ordered that the criminal   prosecution of the accused police officer be discontinued on the ground that the facts did not attain   the level of severity required for application of the criminal law, and ordered him to pay an   administrative fine. The fine was subsequently cancelled. On 30 June 2008 an appeal on points of   law by Ms Doiciu was dismissed.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   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   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleged that she had been subjected to ill-treatment in   the police premises on the evening of 3 January 2001. She further submitted that the judicial   authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation following her criminal   complaint.   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: 11,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 2,573.76 (costs and   expenses)   Melnichuk and Others v. Romania (nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10)   The applicants, Rostislav Ivanovich Melnichuk, Alla Rotislavovna Lyana, Sofiya Filipovna Demchuk,   and Valeriy Valentinovich Shpartak, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1939, 1964, 1951, and   respectively and live in Rivne (Ukraine). Rostislav Melnichuk and Alla Lyana are father and   daughter. Valeriy Shpartak and Sofiya Demchuk are husband and wife. Their case concerned the lack   of an effective investigation into an army operation in Romania in 1989 which resulted in the death   of Mr Melnichuk’s wife and left Sofiya Demchuk and Valeriy Shpartak severely injured.   In December 1989 Mr Melnichuk and his wife Nadejda Melnichuk were driving through Romania on   their way home to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) after a tourist trip to Yugoslavia. At   the time Romania was experiencing a period of unrest. The former President Ceauşescu had just   been toppled and rumours were circulating of terrorists attempting to reinstate his regime. Mr   Melnichuk and his wife were driving in a convoy of five cars; Ms Demchuk and Mr Shpartak were   travelling with them. The border police notified a Romanian army unit in Craiova that a convoy of   foreign cars was heading towards the town. Suspecting that they might be terrorists, the   commander of the army unit dispatched a team of soldiers to block the road and stop the convoy.   The cars reached the blockade at the village of Brădeşti and the soldiers told the passengers, in   Romanian, to get out and surrender. The passengers did not understand what the soldiers said and   stayed in their vehicles. The soldiers opened fire on the cars, also hitting a local bus which was   behind the convoy. Mr Melnichuk’s wife was killed and Ms Demchuk and Mr Shpartak were both   injured. Four days later the USSR citizens lodged a complaint with the USSR Embassy in Yugoslavia.   The military prosecutor in Craiova also opened a criminal investigation into the incident. Over the   years the case was transferred from one prosecutor to another, and opened and closed on several   occasions. In 2007 the cases were added to a larger investigation case file which covered several   hundred victims of events between 21 and 30 December 1989. In 2010 the military prosecutor   decided to discontinue proceedings in respect of the incident at Brădeşti, but this decision was   quashed and a new case was registered in 2011 with the High Court of Cassation and Justice,   investigations are still pending.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Melnichuk and his daughter Ms Lyana, and Ms   Demchuk and Mr Shpartak complained that the Romanian authorities had failed to conduct an   effective, impartial and thorough investigation to identify and punish those responsible for the army   operation in 1989 in which Ms Melnichuk had been killed and Ms Demchuk and Mr Shpartak had   been severely injured.   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) – in respect of all four applicants   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 to each applicant (non-pecuniary damage)   Arratibel Garciandia v. Spain (no. 58488/13)*   The applicant, Jon Patxi Arratibel Garciandia, is a Spanish national who was born in 1975 and lives in   Etxarri Aranatz (Navarre province).   The case concerned his claims that no effective investigation had been carried out into allegations of   ill-treatment sustained while he was held incommunicado in police custody in the headquarters of   the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil).   On 18 January 2011 Mr Arratibel Garciandia was arrested at his home by Civil Guard officers in   connection with the suspected offence of membership of the organisation EKIN, part of the terrorist   group ETA. Mr Arratibel Garciandia was transferred to the Pamplona Audiencia Provincial, and then   driven by car on the same day to Madrid, where he was taken to the Civil Guard headquarters: there   he was placed incommunicado in police custody. While held incommunicado in police custody, he   was questioned on several occasions, and claims that he was threatened and insulted.   On 22 January 2011 Mr Arratibel Garciandia was brought before the central investigating judge, who   ordered that he be remanded in custody. On 11 March 2011 Mr Arratibel Garciandia lodged a   complaint, alleging ill-treatment while held incommunicado in police custody.   By an order finding that there was no case to answer issued on 27 February 2012, the Pamplona   investigating judge held, in the light of reports by the forensic doctors and the statement made by   Mr Arratibel Garciandia, that there was no evidence proving that the ill-treatment complained of   had genuinely been inflicted. On 6 March 2012 Mr Arratibel Garciandia appealed. The order finding   that there was no case to answer was upheld. An amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court   was declared inadmissible. Mr Arratibel Garciandia was released on bail on 26 July 2012.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant considered that   the domestic courts had not conducted an effective investigation into his complaint about the   ill-treatment to which he claimed to have been subjected while held incommunicado in police   custody.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit fixed   by the Court.   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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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