Information Note on the Court’s case-law 192

January 2016

Boacă and Others v. Romania - 40355/11

Judgment 12.1.2016 [Section IV]

Article 34

Victim

Locus standi of heirs to make Article 3 complaint on behalf of man who died before application to the Court was lodged: victim status upheld

Facts – The first six applicants were the heirs of I.B., a Romanian national of Roma origin, who was allegedly subjected to a b eating by the police in March 2006. In June 2006 I.B. and the first three applicants, who also alleged ill-treatment, lodged a criminal complaint against the officers responsible. In April 2010 I.B. died of causes unrelated to the incident at the police st ation. The first six applicants continued the domestic proceedings, which were ultimately dismissed. In the Convention proceedings, they were joined by the seventh applicant, who was not an heir, but who had been married to I.B., and had spent most of her life and raised their six children with him. The applicants complained in their own name and on behalf of I.B., inter alia , that I.B. and the first three applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police and of the lack of an effective investiga tion.

Law – Article 34 ( victim status ): The Court observed that I.B., the direct victim of the alleged violations of the Convention, had died before the application was lodged. It therefore examined the standing of all the applicants to bring the complaint s before the Court on his behalf. Without losing sight of the strictly personal nature of the Article 3 right, the Court had not in previous cases excluded recognising standing in the context of complaints under Article 3 to applicants who complain about t reatment exclusively concerning a deceased relative. Such applicants had to show either a strong moral interest, besides the mere pecuniary interest in the outcome of the domestic proceedings, or other compelling reasons, such as an important general inter est which required their case to be examined.

In finding that the first six applicants could be considered indirect victims, the Court noted that all bar the seventh applicant had accompanied I.B. immediately after the attack, were part of the domestic pr oceedings, and had eventually continued the domestic proceedings on his behalf after his death. The application, which concerned police brutality and discrimination on ethnic grounds, raised serious issues under the Convention. The first six applicants had a strong moral interest in the case. Indeed, they also alleged that they had been victims of police brutality and discrimination, and the first three had lodged their own complaints along with I.B.’s before the domestic authorities. They could thus claim to have been closely concerned with the events giving rise to the instant application and consequently to have more than a mere pecuniary interest in the case. The first six applicants thus had a legitimate interest in bringing before the Court the current application, which concerned issues of general interest pertaining to respect of human rights. However, the seventh applicant could not be considered an indirect victim.

Conclusion : admissible in respect of the first six applicants (unanimously).

On the merits, the Court found, unanimously, a substantive violation of Article 3 on account of I.B.’s ill-treatment, a procedural violation of Article 3 in the absence of an effective investigation, a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with the procedur al limb of Article 3 and no violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with the substantive limb of Article 3. It awarded the first six applicants EUR 11,700 jointly as non-pecuniary damage in respect of the abuse suffered by I.B.

(Compare Kaburov v. Bulg aria (dec.), 9035/06, 19 June 2012, Information Note 153 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes