issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 237 (2019)  
25.06.2019  
Failings of an investigation into a police identity check  
breached the Convention  
In today’s Committee judgment in the case of Bădoiu v. Romania (application no. 5365/16) the  
European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:  
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), under its procedural  
head, of the European Convention on Human Rights.  
The case concerned allegations of police violence and the ensuing investigation.  
The Court found in particular that the investigative authorities had not established with sufficient  
precision what had happened during the identity check or at the police station in order to clearly  
determine the origin of, and persons responsible for, the applicant’s injuries. Those failings were  
exclusively attributable to the authorities.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, George Vichente Bădoiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1983 and lives in  
Arad (Romania).  
On 8 November 2010, at around 11 p.m., a police car stopped near a group of friends including  
Mr Bădoiu, and a team of three police officers carried out an identity check. The Government’s and  
the applicant’s versions differed as to the circumstances.  
Mr Bădoiu filed a complaint against the three police officers, who had allegedly manhandled him.  
On 6 December 2010 the police officers stated that the applicant had refused to show his identity  
card, that he had agreed to get in their car to go to the police station but had become violent during  
the journey and, on his arrival, had assaulted a police officer. The police had been obliged to use  
force to control and handcuff Mr Bădoiu. After checking his identity, they had charged him with a  
petty offence and then released him. Mr Bădoiu and his friends denied any violence against the  
police. Mr Bădoiu also disputed the presence of a police witness at the scene of the identity check  
and accused him of giving false testimony at the instigation of the police.  
Two expert reports by the Institute of Forensic Medicine of Arad and Timisoara confirmed the  
findings of an initial forensic examination carried out on 12 November 2010, namely that Mr  
Bădoiu’s injuries had required eight or nine days of treatment and had been caused by blows from  
hard objects. On 5 September 2012 the prosecutor’s office questioned the police. They presented a  
version of the facts that was different from the first: they claimed that the applicant had become  
violent during the identity check, which had forced them to handcuff him. At the police station, the  
applicant had allegedly thrown himself to the ground and had banged his head several times  
deliberately against a metal grating.  
On 22 January 2014 the prosecutor dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the injuries had  
resulted from a justified and proportionate use of force and acts of self-harm. Upon Mr Bădoiu’s  
appeal, the Arad court and the Timisoara Court of Appeal ordered the reopening of the  
investigation, considering that it had not met the conditions of Article 3 of the Convention. The file  
was transferred to the military prosecutor’s office, as one of the three police officers had the status  
of a serviceman. The military prosecutor questioned those concerned once again. On 30 April 2015  
the military prosecutor shelved the complaint, finding that the police had used proportionate force  
and that some injuries had been self-inflicted.  
Mr Bădoiu filed a complaint against the three police officers, accusing them of procuring false  
evidence and presenting untrue facts in their report of the intervention. The Arad court dismissed  
his complaint. On 8 November 2010 the police fined the applicant for refusing to submit to an  
identity check. The Arad court upheld an appeal by the applicant and annulled the fine, taking the  
view that he had been the victim of ill-treatment by the police.  
Finally, the prosecutor’s office imposed a criminal fine on Mr Bădoiu for insulting police officers. In a  
judgment that became final on 28 March 2012, the court dismissed Mr Bădoiu’s appeal, finding that  
he had insulted the police officers.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that he  
had been subjected to ill-treatment during a police identity check of 8 November 2010. He also  
complained that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into his allegations.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 January 2016.  
Judgment was given by a Committee of three judges, composed as follows:  
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), President,  
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Romania),  
Péter Paczolay (Hungary),  
and also Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 3  
The Court observed that on 22 January 2014 the public prosecutor’s office had discontinued the  
investigation by deciding to shelve Mr Bădoiu’s complaint. It noted that the prosecutor’s office had  
taken into account the police officers’ version and had not considered the fact that on 5 September  
2012 they had presented a different version of the facts and had changed their initial statements.  
The Court also found that the experts had not carried out a thorough examination of Mr Bădoiu’s  
injuries but had simply confirmed the findings of the first forensic medical certificate produced by  
the applicant. Lastly, the Court noted the conclusion of the Arad court and the Timisoara Court of  
Appeal that the investigation by the public prosecutor’s office, which had ultimately been  
discontinued, did not meet the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. In addition, the Arad  
court ruled that Mr Bădoiu had been mistreated by the three police officers.  
However, in spite of the contradictions between the two versions presented by the police officers,  
the military prosecutor’s office had merely questioned again the three police officers, who reiterated  
their statements of 5 September 2012, and on the basis of these statements alone had decided not  
to reopen the investigation and shelved the applicant’s complaint a second time.  
In view of these failings, which were exclusively attributable to the authorities, the Court found that  
the investigative authorities had not established with sufficient precision what had happened during  
the identity check or at the police station in order to clearly determine the origin of, and the persons  
responsible for, the applicant’s injuries. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 3 under  
its procedural head.  
2
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant 19,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-  
pecuniary damage, and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.  
The judgment is available only in French.  
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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive  
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter  
@ECHRpress.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)  
Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)  
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