Excessive use of physical force by police during the search of suspects’ homes. Insulting the dignity of the suspects, but not of their family members
JUDGMENT
Ilievi and Ganchevi v. Bulgaria 8.6.2021 (no. 69154/11 and 69163/11)
SUMMARY
Home research, excessive use of police force and respect for human dignity.
Armed police officers with hoods entered the applicants houses, very early in the morning and without any prior notice of the two applicants, who were suspected of financial crimes. The police authorities immobilized them on the ground, handcuffed them and threatened them with their weapons. There was no evidence that the two applicants had a violent history and that they could pose a danger to police officers who entered their homes. In addition, none of them resisted the police during the disputed operations. The ECtHR unanimously ruled that there had been a breach of the prohibition on degrading treatment of the first two applicants (Article 3 of the ECHR).
Regarding the complaints of the other members of the families of the above applicants, the actions of the police against them were judged by the ECtHR to be very short and low intensity and therefore did not violate their human dignity. Non-violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.
The Court also unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, because neither the law-based disciplinary proceedings against the Minister of the Interior nor the action for damages against the State were sufficiently effective domestic remedies.
PROVISION
Article 3
Article 13
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The two applications concern a police operation conducted in the respective homes of the
applicants, who allege that they suffered inhuman and degrading treatment.
The applications were lodged by five Bulgarian nationals: Georgi Iliev, his wife and his daughter, who
was aged 19 at the material time, (application no. 69154/11), and Georgi Ganchev and his wife
(application no. 69163/11).
In October 2010 the public prosecutor’s office brought criminal proceedings against five persons,
including Mr Iliev and Mr Ganchev, for unlawful pursuit of a financial activity and receiving stolen
goods. In April 2011 a court authorised a search of the applicants’ homes. On 18 April 2011, at
6.30 a.m. and 6.20 a.m. respectively, the applicants were awakened by special officers wearing
masks.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on
Human Rights, the applicants complain of ill-treatment at the hands of the police during the police
operation in their respective homes.
Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, they also complain
that they had no access to an effective domestic remedy in order to put forward their allegations.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 3
The police operation in question pursued the lawful purpose of the arrest, investigation and seizure as well as the general interest purpose of suppressing the offenses. The applicants were not injured during the two disputed police interventions. However, the interventions involved some use of physical force: several hooded and armed police officers, very early in the morning and without any prior notice to the applicants, entered the houses of the latter and pushed Ms Ilieva and Ms Gancheva, arrested Mr Iliev and Mr Ganchev on the ground and handcuffed. The Court must therefore determine whether that use of physical force was made absolutely necessary by the applicants’ conduct.
The treatment suffered by both of the applicants
The purpose of the police operations in the respective houses of Mr. Iliev and Mr. Ganchev was to arrest them, as they were both suspected of having engaged in illegal economic activity, and to search the premises for evidence. The criminal investigation had started six months earlier and there were several suspects in this case, but there is no specific group of suspects in the commission of violent crimes.
In contrast to the case of Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, the authorities had obtained the necessary prior authorizations to conduct searches in the applicants’ respective homes. However, exercising jurisdiction under national law, the judges who issued these permits only examined the compliance of the inquiries required with the provisions of domestic law without taking into account the manner in which the operation was to be conducted.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the file to support the conclusion that the two applicants had a violent history and that they could pose a danger to police officers called upon to intervene in their homes.
In addition, none of them resisted the police during the operations in their respective homes.
All of these were elements that clearly showed the excessive nature of the behavior of the police officers who immobilized the two applicants on the ground, handcuffed them and threatened them with their weapons. In the light of these circumstances, the degree of violence used against Mr Iliev and Mr Ganchev, which was not absolutely necessary on the basis of their conduct, undermined their human dignity. As a result, they were subjected to degrading treatment.
Conclusion: Unanimous violation.
The treatment of the other three applicants
The intervention teams chose not to break into the front doors of the applicants’ houses, the police rang the bell and Mrs Ilieva and Mrs Gancheva went to open them. As soon as he entered, the police pushed the two applicants and pointed their weapons at them for a while. The physical interaction between the police and Ms Ilieva and Ms Gancheva was therefore very brief and minimal.
There was then no physical contact between Ms Ilieva and the police: the applicant saw her father being arrested by the officers and reacted emotionally to the incident.
There is no evidence to support the conclusion that the police officers violated the human dignity of these three applicants. Police operations involving home raids and the arrest of suspects inevitably provoke negative emotions in people like the applicants. However, none of them seem to be particularly affected by the actions of the police, for example due to Mrs Ilieva’s particularly fragile state of health or youth. In the present case, none of the three applicants presented any evidence to suggest that one of them was suffering from a condition which could be aggravated by the actions of the police in view of the fact that at the material time Ms Ilieva was not small child, but she was nineteen.
In the light of these facts, and in the special circumstances of the case, the actions of the police in relation to these three applicants, which were very brief and of low intensity, do not seem disproportionate in the face of an unexpected and stressful event, such as the entry of the police early in the morning in their respective homes, and that the actions did not violate their human dignity.
Conclusion: Non-violation (unanimously).
Article 13
The Court also unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, because neither the disciplinary proceedings against the Minister of the Interior nor the action for damages against the State were sufficiently effective domestic remedies which five applicants will be able to claim their right not to be treated contrary to Article 3.
Article 41: 3,000 euros to each of Messrs. Iliev and Ganchev, for non-pecuniary damage. The finding of a violation of Article 13 was considered sufficient for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Ms Ilieva, Ms Ilieva and Mr Gancheva.
