Greece condemned by the ECtHR in 2018 three times for violations of Article 3 due to the conduct of police officers

In 2018, 3 judgments were handed down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the context of which a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was found to have been committed due to the (violent or arbitrary) conduct of police officers and/or due to the failure to conduct a full, fair and impartial investigation into alleged incidents of police violence or arbitrariness.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognizes the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. This right is considered to consist of two aspects, the substantive and the procedural. States have the obligation not to allow any action that violates these rights, but also the obligation to fully investigate any allegations of the violation of these rights. In cases where a person is confronted by the police authorities, any resort to physical violence that has not been rendered absolutely necessary by the individual’s previous conduct is an affront to human dignity and constitutes in principle a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR (see more on the content of Article 3 at 1, 2, 3.

In 2018, the ECtHR issued 3 judgments in which Greece was found to have violated Article 3 due to police conduct.

In January 2018 the decision (see 1, 2) in the case of Sidiropoulos and Papakostas v Greece was issued (application no. 33349/10).

In this case, the ECtHR held that there was a violation of Articles 3, 6 para. 1 and 13 of the ECHR (see more on the judgment here).

In April 2018, the judgment (see 1, 2) in Andersen v Greece was delivered (application no. 42660/11)

In this case the applicant complained of the use of physical violence (kicks, punches, blows with clubs) against him by the police officers involved in his arrest in 2008 (see in particular paragraphs 8-11 and 67 et seq.) and, furthermore, of the failure of the administrative and judicial authorities to conduct a full, fair and impartial investigation into the incident in question (see in particular paragraphs 26-38 and 43-44).

The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR in its procedural aspect, as the independent and thorough nature of the investigation was questionable (cf. in particular para. 60-66, where it is stated that the authorities relied mainly on police statements and that the applicant’s allegations were not properly examined). On the other hand, it concluded that there had been no breach of Article 3 in its substantive part, since the evidence in the file did not enable the cause of the applicant’s injuries to be determined with absolute certainty and beyond reasonable doubt, but stressed that this failure (to determine the cause of the injuries) was largely due to the absence of a thorough and effective investigation by the national authorities.

Read also

Report Torosian v. Greece: European Court of Human Rights finds Greece…

Article European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece over the detention…

Article 2017: European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece over the…

In November 2018 the decision (see 1, 2) in the case of Konstantinopoulos and Others v Greece (No 2) was issued (application no. 29543/15 and 30984/15).

This case resulted from 2 appeals that were heard together because of the similarity of the facts and the substantive issues raised.

The 22 applicants were detained in the Grevena Prison, where in April 2013 a surprise search was carried out by prison staff with the assistance of officers from an Anti-Terrorist Unit, a bomb disposal unit and a police dog. The applicants complained (a) that during the course of the search they had been subjected to disproportionate and unjustified verbal and physical violence by the police officers (see paragraphs 9, 13, 58 et seq.); and (b) of the ineffectiveness of the investigation carried out into the alleged incident.

The Court, ruling on the merits of the case for 21 applicants, concluded that for 11 of them there had been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, both substantively and procedurally, as on the one hand the applicants in question had suffered ill-treatment (see paragraphs 69-83) and, secondly, the investigation carried out by the national authorities into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment was neither thorough nor rapid nor independent (see paragraphs 95-110). On the other hand, the Court decided that for the other 10 applicants (for whom no evidence was submitted concerning the injuries they suffered) the existence of ill-treatment had not been established.