FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 49473/07 Constantin OPREA against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 January 2017 as a Chamber composed of:

András Sajó, President, Vincent A. De Gaetano, Nona Tsotsoria, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Iulia Motoc, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2007,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Constantin Oprea, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr M.A. Tănăsescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by th eir Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 4 March 2006, a dispute took place between the applicant and a neighbour regarding car parking. It happened in front of the building where they lived. The applicant alleged that B.C. hit him several times on the head and face with a solid object, leaving him unconscious for a few moments.

5. Helped by his son and wife, he returned to his house and immediately called the police.

6. The police officers, who immediately arrived on the scene, imposed a fine on both him and his neighbour for a public order infraction.

7. The infraction fine ( proces- verbal de contraven ţ ie ) stated that it had been acknowledged by both parties involved in the incident that there had been a physical altercation between them. It had also mentioned that the applicant and B.C. had been advised to present themselves for a medical examination by the Bucharest forensic office.

8. The same day, after the police left, the applicant went to the closest hospital, Sfântu Ioan Emergency Hospital, for medical care.

9. On the medical certificate issued on 14 March 2006 by the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute, it was mentioned that the applicant presented with traumatic cuts and bruising that could have been caused by repeated blows from a hard object on 4 March 2006. According to the same certificate, the applicant needed at least seven to eight d ays of medical care to recover.

10. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against his aggressor for the offence of bodily harm under Article 180 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In turn, the defendant lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for intimidation, insult and defamation. The two files were joined and examined together. Both parties to the criminal trial also joined a civil complaint to the criminal one. Sfântu Ioan Emergency Hospital also lodged a civil claim.

11. The Bucharest District Court heard evidence from five witnesses proposed by the parties. None of the witnesses had been present at the incident of 4 March 2006 and consequently they stated that they were not aware of any physical altercation between the applicant and B.C.

12. By a judgment of 25 Janua ry 2007, the Bucharest District Court acquitted both defendants and dismissed the joint civil actions. The defendant indicated by the applicant in the criminal complaint was acquitted on the grounds that the applicant had not proved t hat he had caused the injuries.

13. The applicant appealed. He argued that the court of first instance had failed to investigate how the injuries attested by the medical certificate had been caused. He also claimed that the only eyewitness to the incident, O.M.M., although admitted as a witness and summoned by the court of first instance, had not had an opportunity to give evidence. The applicant did not indicate why this witness had not been heard.

14. By a decision of 27 April 2007 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law upholding the decision of 25 January 2007 on the grounds that the simple submission of a medical certificate to the court does not prove the guilt of t . e defendant.

B. Relevant domestic law

15. The provisions of the Criminal Code, as in force on the date the offence was allegedly committed, defining bodily harm, read as follows:

Article 180 § 2

“ Violence causing physical injuries needi ng medical care of up to twenty days for recovery is punishable by imprisonment of between three months and two years, or by a fine . ”

COMPLAINT

16. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained that the authorities had failed to diligently prosecute an individual who had assaulted him .

THE LAW

17. The applicant complai ned of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the authorities ’ alleged failure to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his complaint of assault.

18. The Court considers that it would be more appropriate to examine the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the manner in which the investigation and the ensuing criminal proceedings were conducted by the authorities, under Article 3 the Convention.

19. This provision reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

20. The applicant contended that the domestic courts had not gathered enough evidence to clarify the facts of his case.

21. The Government submitted that the criminal investigation had been adequate and effective within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The domestic authorities had taken all necessary procedural steps to clarify the circumstances of the violence the applicant had been subjected to. They had examined numerous pieces of evidence and the outcome of the proceedings instituted by the applicant had been based on the evidence in the case file. The Government concluded that there h ad been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

22. The Court reiterates that the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill ‑ treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see, among other authorities, Å ečić v. Croatia , no. 40116/02, § 52, 31 May 2007; Çelik v. Turkey (no. 2) , no. 39326/02, § 32, 27 May 2010; J.L. v. Latvia , no. 23893/06, § 64, 17 April 2012; and O ’ Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 144, ECHR 2014 (extracts) ).

23. In the instant case the Court observes that the applicant sustained various injuries during the dispute with his neighbour. He needed at least seven to eight days of medical care to recover. It has not been disputed between the parties that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected on that occasion reached the threshold of severity necessary to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the authorities had a procedural obligation to conduct an official investigation (see Nikolay Dimitrov v. Bulgaria , no. 72663/01, § 67, 27 September 2007, and Vasil Hristov v. Bulgaria , no. 81260/12, § 37, 16 June 2015 ).

24. However, the obligation to investigate is not an obligation of results to be achieved, but of means to be employed; not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant ’ s account of events (see Mikheyev v. Russia , no. 77617/01, § 107, 26 January 2006). The minimum standards of effectiveness laid down by the Court ’ s case-law include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial, thorough and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine , no. 54755/08, § 44, 14 November 2013).

25. In the present case there is nothing to suggest that the domestic proceedings lacked the requisite independence and impartiality.

26. The domestic courts heard evidence from the relevant witnesses, assembled the evidence, including the medical certificate submitted by the applicant, and took all necessary steps in order to shed light on the circumstances of the alleged incident. As regards O.M.M., the witness proposed by the applicant in his behalf, the Court notes that the domestic court of first instance had admitted her as a witness and summoned her. However, for reasons which are altogether unclear, she was not heard. At the same time, no particular delays on the part of the authorities can be discerned.

27. Therefore, in the Court ’ s view, the applicant ’ s complaint appears to be confined to his discontent with the assessment of evidence and the outcome of the investigation.

28. In this respect the Court reiterates that it is not its task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic authorities, and in particular the courts, and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Manzhos v. Russia , no. 64752/09, § 47, 24 May 2016). The Court does not discern cogent elements in the case to lead it to depart from the findings reached by the domestic courts.

29. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that there is no indication of a violation of the proc edural obligation under Article 3 of the Conve ntion.

30. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, by a majority,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Andrea Tamietti András Sajó Deputy Registrar President