 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria - 51284/09 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 1143 (30 September 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/1143.html Cite as: [2014] ECHR 1143 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 177
September 2014
Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria - 51284/09
Judgment 30.9.2014 [Section IV] See: [2014] ECHR 1009
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Use of electrical discharge weapons (Tasers) during police raid on company offices: violation
Facts - Masked police officers raided the offices where the applicants worked. In the course of the operation they used electrical discharge weapons in contact mode, allegedly to overcome the applicants’ resistance and to prevent them from destroying evidence. Some of the applicants sustained burns as a result. A preliminary inquiry into the applicants’ allegations ended with a decision of the military prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings against the officers concerned.
Law - Article 3: Electroshock discharges applied in contact mode (known also as “drive-stun” mode) were known to cause intense pain and temporary incapacitation. Bulgarian law at the time lacked any specific provisions on the use of electroshock devices by the police, who were not trained in their use. The Court noted that in its 20th General Report the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) had expressed strong reservations regarding the use of electrical discharge weapons in contact mode. Properly trained law enforcement officers had many other control techniques available to them when they were in touching distance of a person who had to be immobilised.
Given the failure of the preliminary inquiry to establish in detail the exact circumstances of the incident and to account in full for the use of force of the extent and type alleged, the Government had failed to discharge the burden of disproving the applicants’ version of the events or to furnish convincing arguments justifying the degree of force used. There had thus been a violation of both the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3.
Conclusion: violations (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each applicant whose complaint was declared admissible.