Case of European Court of Human Rights, July 05, 2016 (case Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC])

Resolution Date:July 05, 2016
SUMMARY

Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

 
FREE EXCERPT

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 198

July 2016

Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC] - 44898/10

Judgment 5.7.2016 [GC]

Article 37

Article 37-1

Striking out applications

Continuing obligation of the respondent State to investigate Article 3 complaints even following a decision striking out the complaint following a unilateral declaration

Article 3

Effective investigation

Positive obligations

Refusal to reopen criminal proceedings in respect of which Government had submitted unilateral declaration: violation

Facts – In 1998 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings concerning his alleged ill-treatment by police officers. Those proceedings were ultimately discontinued. In 2001 the applicant lodged an application (no. 547/02) with the European Court complaining, inter alia, about the ill-treatment and the lack of an effective investigation. In respect of that complaint the Government submitted a unilateral declaration acknowledging a breach of Article 3 and awarding the applicant compensation. On 10 February 2009 the application was consequently struck out of the list in so far as it concerned the complaints referred to in the unilateral declaration. In 2010, the authorities refused a request by the applicant to have the criminal proceedings reopenRefus ed.

In his present application to the European Court, the applicant complained that, despite the acknowledgment by the Government of the breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention, the State authorities had failed to properly investigate his ill-treatment by the police officers.

On 3 February 2015 a Chamber of the Court decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (see Information Note 182).

Law – Article 3

(a) Court’s case-law and practice on unilateral declarations – The considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether to strike out a case, or part thereof, under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration are: (i) the nature of the complaints made, the nature and scope of any measures taken by the respondent Government in the context of the execution of judgments delivered by the Court in any such previous cases and the impact of these measures on the case at issue; (ii) the nature of the concessions contained in the unilateral declaration, in particular the acknowledgment of a violation of the Convention and the payment of adequate compensation for such violation; (iii) the existence of relevant or “clear and...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL