Communicated on 16 September 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 36250/09 GraÈ› ian LUPU against Romania lodged on 22 June 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Gra ţ ian Lupu, is a Romanian national of Roma origin, who was born in 1981 and lives in France.

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3 . On 29 May 2006 around 14:00 p.m. the applicant was about to leave Romania through Cenad border station. Hey was travelling in his car together with a friend, F.T. The border police stopped their car and asked to see their documents. The applicant and F.T. handed over their passports and their French and Portuguese residence permits respectively. Upon seeing their documents, the border police officer told them to park the car and wait. Two hours later, C.G., the officer in chief of the border station, in a nervous state, approached the applicant. C.G. was not wearing a uniform and did not introduce himself. The applicant, not knowing who he was, started complaining that they were held there without justification. After a brief exchange of words on this issue with the applicant, C.G. shouted at a nearby border police officer: “A. put the handcuffs on this gypsy right now” and then hit him in the face several times .

4 . When seeing that the applicant ’ s nose started bleeding, C.G. returned his documents and told him he was free to leave. However, the applicant decided not to leave without his friend, who was held for verifications until 22:00 p.m.

5 . During the same evening the applicant went to the S â nnicolau Emergency Hospital where his injuries were treated.

6 . On 31 May 2006 the applicant obtained a forensic medical certificate attesting that he had contusions on the nose and on the right forehead and a bilateral contusion of the temporal-mandibular articulation. He also had a wound on the nose pyramid which had been sutured. The report concluded that the applicant ’ s injuries may have been caused on 29 May 2006 by direct and repeated hitting with a hard object and requir ed ten days of medical care.

7 . On 6 June 2006 the applicant and F.T. filed a complaint with the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Timi ş oara Court of Appeal accusing C.G. of abuse in the exercise of his official duties and abusive behaviour. They claimed that they had been held unlawfully for several hours at the border and that the applicant was ill-treated by C.G. On 14 June 2006 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Timi ş oara Court of Appeal decided that the competent authority to investigate the complaint against officer C.G. was the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the S â nnicolau Mare District Court. On 28 November 2006 the case was sent back to the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Timi ş oara Court of Appeal which started an investigation with respect to C.G. as well as T.I. (the officer who verified the lawfulness of F.T. ’ s documents).

8 . On 16 April 2007 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Timi ş oara Court of Appeal decided not to press any charges against police officer T.I. With respect to C.G. it was decided to send the case back to the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the S â nnicolau Mare District Court in order to continue the investigation.

9 . On 17 December 2007 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the S â nnicolau Mare District Court decided not to press any charges against C.G. According to the prosecutor ’ s decision, several police officers and custom workers from Cenad border station declared that C.G. did not hit or use abusive language against the applicant. One custom employee declared that he had seen the applicant banging his head against his car. The prosecutor further mentioned in its decision that numerous persons who were leaving the country at the time of the incident have been identified and none of them had seen “a possible incident between the border officers and another traveller”. The prosecutor concluded then than no incident had taken place on 29 May 2006 and therefore, C.G. was not guilty of any crime. Finally, due to the fact that the applicant provided a forensic medical certificate showing that he had been hit, the investigation should be continued by the S â nnicolau Mare Police in order to find the perpetrator.

10 . The applicant ’ s complaint against this decision was rejected by the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the S â nnicolau Mare District Court as ill -founded on 20 February 2008.

11 . The applicant lodged a complaint with the S â nnicolau Mare District Court against the prosecutors ’ decisions of 17 December 2007 and 20 February 2008. On 9 July 2008 the court rejected the complaint holding that the applicant ’ s allegations were contradicted by the statements of the police officers and of the customs workers and therefore, C.G. was not guilty of any crime. F.T. ’ s testimony supporting the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment was in no way analysed by the court.

12 . The applicant filed an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against this decision underlining that abuses were perpetrated against him, both during the incident of 29 May 2006 and during the investigation, because he was of Roma origin.

13 . On 22 December 2008 the Timi ş County Court finally rejected the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law as ill-founded.

14 . On 11 October 2010 the S â nnicolau Mare Police informed the applicant that the investigation into his complaint for bodily harm had ceased and the case had been archived in the category of c rimes with unknown perpetrator.

COMPLAINTS

15 . The applicant complains under Articles 6, 10, 18 and 13 of the Convention that on 29 May 2006 he was subjected to ill-treatment by the head of the Cenad border station and that there had been no effective investigation thereof .

16 . The applicant also complains under Article 14 of the Convention that the ill-treatment he had been subjected to and the lack of a subsequent effective investigation was due to his Roma ethnic origin.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of his alleged ill-treatment by a border police officer at Cenad border station on 29 May 2006?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 82 of Şercău v. Romania , no. 41775/06, 5 June 2012 ), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the case of the applicant in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in that, as submitted by the applicant, the alleged ill-treatment inflicted on him and the alleged inadequate investigation were based on prejudice towards Roma?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of the file concerning the criminal investigation and the trial before the domestic courts with respect to the complaint filed by the applicant against the border police officer C.G.