issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 151 (2015)
05.05.2015
Judgments of 5 May 2015
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
two Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Doiciu v. Romania (application no. 1454/09)*
The applicant, Anca Cătălina Doiciu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in
Bucharest.
The case concerned ill-treatment allegedly inflicted by the police and the authorities’ failure to meet
their obligation to conduct an effective investigation following the lodging of a criminal complaint.
On the evening of 3 January 2001, H.R.A, who was Ms Doiciu’s fiancé at the relevant time, and U.N.,
his cousin, were taken to a police station. H.R.A. had been arrested by the police following an
incident involving a taxi driver; Ms Doiciu was summoned to the police station in order to provide a
witness statement.
Ms Doiciu was struck by one of the four police officers present in the room.
On the following day she was examined by a doctor, who noted traumatic lesions requiring twelve to
fourteen days of medical treatment. On the same date she also lodged a criminal complaint for
wrongful conduct and asked to join the proceedings as a civil party.
Her complaint was transmitted to the Brasov military prosecutor’s office, which in turn asked the
police station in question to complete the investigation. Five police officers were questioned; they
denied any act of aggression against Ms Doiciu.
On 19 February 2002 charges of wrongful conduct were brought against one of the police officers
suspected of having struck Ms Doiciu. The police officer told the prosecutor that Ms Doiciu had
attacked him, and that he had merely defended himself. He admitted to having struck her. On
19 April 2002 the military prosecutor dropped the charges, on the ground that the facts were not
serious. He ordered the police officer in question to pay an administrative fine and acquitted the
other policemen. The case was sent back to the prosecutor’s office by a prosecutor at the High Court
of Cassation and Justice. On 14 November 2007 the prosecutor’s office ordered that the criminal
prosecution of the accused police officer be discontinued on the ground that the facts did not attain
the level of severity required for application of the criminal law, and ordered him to pay an
administrative fine. The fine was subsequently cancelled. On 30 June 2008 an appeal on points of
law by Ms Doiciu was dismissed.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
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
