003-5881654-7499663

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 304 (2017)   12.10.2017   Judgments and decisions of 12 October 2017   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 30 judgments1 and 64 decisions2:   one Chamber judgment is summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two   other Chamber judgments in the cases of Adyan and Others v. Armenia (application no. 75604/11)   and Cafagna v. Italy (no. 26073/13);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 64 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment below is available only in English.   Tiziana Pennino v. Italy (application no. 21759/15)   The applicant, Tiziana Pennino, is an Italian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Benevento   (Italy). The case concerned her allegations of ill-treatment by the police and her complaint that there   had been no adequate investigation into the matter.   Ms Pennino submits that, in the afternoon of 2 April 2013, after being stopped in her car by the   Benevento municipal police – who suspected her of being intoxicated, which she denied – she was   ill-treated by several officers. In particular, when she had returned to her car, one officer dragged   her out by her arm. She was taken to the municipal police station where an officer started drafting   an offence report for drunk driving. Her requests to use the telephone were denied. When she tried   to pick up a telephone, one officer hit her. He twisted her arms behind her back and handcuffed her.   Once she started screaming, the officer removed the handcuffs in a violent manner, thus fracturing   her thumb and causing injuries to her wrists.   According to the police reports, Ms Pennino was stopped because she had been driving in an erratic   manner. She smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on her feet and insulted and threatened the police   officers. At the municipal police station, she again insulted and threatened the officers. After she had   pushed and kicked two of them, she was handcuffed, but the handcuffs were removed after she had   calmed down.   Medical reports of two hospitals, where Ms Pennino was examined on the same day after leaving   the police station and again on the two following days, noted that her thumb was fractured and that   she had bruises resulting from traumatic injury on several parts of her body.   Ms Pennino lodged a criminal complaint against the officers who had stopped her in her car and the   other officers who had been present at the police station, alleging in particular assault and infliction   of bodily harm. The investigation was eventually discontinued in October 2014 despite her objection   in which she had complained that the investigators had neither questioned her nor the officers who   had allegedly been involved in the ill-treatment at the police station.   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Criminal proceedings were brought against Ms Pennino on a number of charges. She was given a   suspended sentence of 28 days’ imprisonment for causing bodily harm to a police officer. The   proceedings were suspended as far as the remaining charges were concerned.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, Ms Pennino complained of having been ill-treated by the police and of the ensuing   investigation which, she maintained, had been neither thorough nor effective.   Violation of Article 3 (treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: 12,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 8,000 (costs and expenses)   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)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   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.   2