issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 156 (2011)  
27.09.2011  
Handcuffing man with hip arthritis to a tree  
in police station courtyard was excessive  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Archip v. Romania (application  
no. 49608/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,  
unanimously, that there had been:  
Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment  
and lack of effective investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  
The case concerned Mr Archip’s allegation that he had been taken to his local police  
station and handcuffed to a tree for nearly three hours for complaining about a reduction  
in his sickness benefit.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Constantin Archip, is a Romanian national who was born in 1976 and lives  
in Podoleni (Romania).  
On 7 November 2005 Mr Archip was involved in an incident at Podoleni town hall during  
which he complained about a reduction in his sickness benefit for coxarthrosis (arthritis  
of the hip). Dissatisfied with the explanations given by the mayor and deputy mayor, he  
ended up insulting those working at the town hall. As he could not be calmed down, the  
mayor and deputy mayor took him to the local police station.  
Mr Archip alleged that, once at the station, he had been handcuffed to a tree in the  
courtyard for almost three hours in the cold and wet. The police station being located in  
the centre of the village, he was in full view of anyone passing by. Informed of the  
incident, reporters from the press and local televison also arrived on the scene and took  
pictures. The local press published an article a few days later.  
The same day the Chief of Police wrote up a report on the incident stating that he had  
had to use force and handcuffs to prevent Mr Archip from deliberate self-harm. He stated  
that he had not been handcuffed for any longer than 20-30 minutes and that he had  
stayed close by at all times. A passer by later testified, however, that Mr Archip had  
been alone and the police station closed on the day of the incident.  
On 9 November 2005 Mr Archip lodged a criminal complaint against the Chief of Police as  
well as the mayor. His complaint was ultimately dismissed in February 2008 on the  
ground that the handcuffing in the police courtyard had been in accordance with the  
applicable legislation. Mr Archip’s ensuing appeal on points of law was then dismissed in  
April 2008.  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
The Government acknowledged that Mr Archip had been handcuffed for one hour and 45  
minutes but stated that it had been necessary on account of his aggressive behaviour.  
Indeed, it was for such behaviour that Mr Archip had subsequently been convicted in  
April 2007 of outrage against public morals and disturbance of public order.  
Mr Archip claims that being kept outside for such a long time on a cold and wet  
November day resulted in the worsening of his medical condition. This was confirmed in  
January 2008 by a medical board which certified that he had a medium level disability.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Archip  
complained that his handcuffing in the police courtyard for nearly three hours had been  
gratuitous and humiliating. He also alleged that the ensuing investigation into his  
complaint had been inadequate.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October  
2008.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:  
Josep Casadevall (Andorra), PRESIDENT,  
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania),  
Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia),  
Ján Šikuta (Slovakia),  
Luis López Guerra (Spain),  
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),  
Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), JUDGES,  
and also Santiago Quesada, SECTION REGISTRAR.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)  
Ill-treatment  
The Court considered that handcuffing Mr Archip to a tree in the clearly visible courtyard  
of the police station in the very centre of the village had to have caused him feelings of  
anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him beyond what was  
reasonable; those feelings could only have been aggravated by the presence of the press  
and local television. From the physical point of view, handcuffing someone in perfectly  
good health – let alone someone suffering from coxarthrose – outdoors on a cold and  
wet day in November could be intensely painful. Moreover, according to Article 36 of the  
Romanian Police Act 2002, handcuffs should not be used on people, such as Mr Archip,  
with a visible disability. Even if Mr Archip had refused to obey a police order to calm  
down, the Court could not see how the domestic authorities could be satisfied that the  
force used against him had not been excessive. It therefore concluded that Mr Archip  
had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment for which Romania was  
responsible, in violation of Article 3.  
Investigation  
The Court noted that the judicial authorities had concluded, without providing much  
detail or carefully considering the actual circumstances of the incident, that Mr Archip’s  
handcuffing had been lawful and necessary. In particular, the period of time that  
2
Mr Archip had spent handcuffed was not clear – it varied between 20-30 minutes  
according to the Chief police officer, one hour and 45 minutes according to the  
Government and nearly three hours according to Mr Archip and several witnesses. Nor  
was it clearly established whether there had been a police presence during that period of  
time or whether Mr Archip had been left alone. Indeed, the courts’ conclusions had  
mainly only been based on the Chief of Police’s report and statements given by police  
officers and the mayor. No explanation was given as to why the police had not tried  
other less extreme means to calm Mr Archip who did not in effect pose much of a threat.  
The Court therefore found that the investigation into Mr Archip’s allegations had not  
been thourough, adequate or effective, in further violation of Article 3.  
Article 41 (just satisfaction)  
The Court held that Romania was to pay Mr Archip 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non  
pecuniary damage.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s  
RSS feeds.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3