The ECHR Ruling of June 08, 2021 in the case "Ilievs and Ganchevs v. Bulgaria" (complaints NN 69154/11 and 69163/11).
In 2011, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaints were consolidated and communicated to Bulgaria.
In the case, the excessive use of force by police officers during the search of suspects' homes is being appealed. The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 3 of the Convention.
In the case, the degrading treatment inflicted on family members of the suspects is being appealed. There was no violation of the requirements of article 3 of the Convention in the case.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In October 2010, the Veliko Tarnovo District Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter referred to as the District Prosecutor's Office) opened a criminal case against five persons, including applicants Iliev and Ganchiev, for illegal financial activities and concealment of stolen property. In April 2011, the Veliko Tarnovo District Court (hereinafter referred to as the District Court) authorized searches of the applicants' homes, which were carried out on the morning of April 18, 2011.
Five applicants, namely the Ilievs and their daughter, who was 19 years old at the time of the circumstances of the case, and the Ganchevs, complained that the actions of police officers in their homes amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that Bulgarian legislation did not provide them with an effective remedy.
LEGAL ISSUES
Regarding compliance with article 3 of the Convention. The appealed actions of the police officers pursued the legitimate goals of detaining and searching houses, seizing objects, as well as ensuring public interest in the form of combating crime. During the two police operations in question, the applicants were not physically injured, and police officers did not enter the applicants' homes with the use of force. Nevertheless, some physical force was used during the operations: several masked armed officers broke into the applicants' houses early in the morning, pushing the applicants Ilieva and Ganchev away, ordering the applicants Iliev and Ganchev to lie on the floor before handcuffing them. Consequently, the Court had to establish whether the use of this physical force was necessary as a result of the applicants' own conduct.
- With regard to the treatment of male applicants. The objectives of the police operations in the homes of the applicants Iliev and Ganchev were to detain them, as they were suspected of illegal financial activities and concealment of stolen property, as well as to search the houses for physical or written evidence. A criminal investigation was launched six months before the incident, and there were several suspects in the case, although no group of people was suspected of committing particularly serious crimes.
In contrast to the Ruling of the European Court in the case "Gutsanovs v. Bulgaria" (See: Ruling of the European Court in the case "Gutsanovs v. Bulgaria" (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria) dated October 15, 2013, complaint No. 34529/10), the authorized authorities received in advance the necessary permits to conduct searches in the applicants' homes. However, exercising their powers under Bulgarian law, the judges considered the issue of compliance of the requested searches with the provisions of domestic legislation, without addressing the issue of compliance by police officers with modus operandi during the planned investigative actions.
Moreover, nothing in the case file suggested that the two applicants would have had any recorded history of violent convictions or that they could pose a danger to the police officers who searched the applicants' homes.
Moreover, none of the applicants resisted the police officers during the searches.
All these factors clearly indicated the excessive nature of the police officers' actions when they ordered the applicants to lie on the floor, handcuffed them and pointed guns at them. Given these circumstances, the degree of violence applied to the applicants Iliev and Ganchev, which was not strictly conditioned by the applicants' own behavior, violated the applicants' human dignity. Consequently, they were victims of degrading treatment.
RESOLUTION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 3 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
- With regard to the treatment of the three applicants. Groups of police officers decided not to break down the doors in the applicants' houses: they rang the doors of the houses, and they were opened by the applicants Ilieva (the applicant's wife Ilieva) and Gancheva. The police officers found themselves face to face with two women who had not expected such a visit. Upon entering the premises, the police officers pushed the applicants and briefly pointed their weapons at them. Thus, the physical interaction between the police officers and the applicants was very brief and insignificant.
Subsequently, there was no physical contact between the police officers and the applicant Ilieva (applicant Iliev's daughter), who saw her father being detained by police officers and reacted emotionally to this.
There is no evidence to suggest that the police officers humiliated the human dignity of the three applicants. Police operations involving the invasion of private homes and the detention of suspects inevitably cause negative emotions among those affected by such actions, like the applicants. However, it does not appear that any of the applicants in the present case suffered much from the actions of the police officers due, for example, to poor health or young age, as in the applicant Ilieva (daughter of the applicant Iliev). In this regard, none of the three applicants presented evidence that would indicate that any of them suffered from diseases that would have been aggravated by the actions of police officers, and at the time in question, the applicant's daughter Iliev was 19 years old, she was no longer a child.
In the light of the above and the special circumstances of the case, the actions of the vis-a-vis police officers towards the three applicants, very short in time and insignificant, apparently were not disproportionate to the applicants' reaction to such an unexpected, stressful event as the invasion of their homes early in the morning by police officers, as well as the actions in question were not they violated the applicants' human dignity.
RESOLUTION
There was no violation of the requirements of article 3 of the Convention in the case (adopted unanimously).
The European Court also found unanimously a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, considered in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, due to the fact that neither disciplinary proceedings under the Bulgarian Law on the Ministry of Internal Affairs nor a claim against the State for compensation for harm were sufficient effective remedies for the five applicants to guarantee their right not to be subjected to treatment that violates the requirements of article 3 of the Convention.
COMPENSATION
In the application of article 41 of the Convention. The European Court awarded 3,000 euros to the applicants Iliev and Ganchev each as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, deciding that the finding of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in itself is sufficient just compensation for any moral harm caused to the applicants Iliev and Gancheva.