Case of Cioffi v. Italy (Application no. 17710/15)

A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.

86. In particular, the Court notes that, upon their arrival at the police station, the individuals held there, which included the applicant, were made to walk through a hallway lined by law-enforcement officers who, amongst other things, took turns slapping, kicking, and tripping them (see paragraph 17 above). The applicant had also been forced to kneel on the floor with his face to the wall and his hands behind his head, and in order to enforce that posture, he had been shoved, kicked and punched from behind by officers (see paragraph 18 above). What further emerges from the findings of the domestic courts is that the applicant was also subjected to several beatings and that he sustained contusions to the head and back (see paragraphs 18 and 23 above). The physical abuse against the applicant was described as “very violent” by the first-instance court, which also found that he had become a “designated target” for the officers (see paragraph 19 above). The Court notes that there has not been and, on the basis of the material available to it, there can hardly be any suggestion that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected while entirely under the authorities’ control, as described above, was made necessary by his conduct (see Bouyid, cited above §§ 88 and 100-01).

87. The Court further notes that the first-instance court singled out the applicant as among the recipients of “particularly odious” verbal abuse (see paragraph 19 above). This conduct had aimed, according to that court, to instil and prolong a state of fear in the applicant. The Court also notes that, as emphasised by the applicant and as shown by the findings of the domestic courts, the applicant identified himself as a trainee lawyer and requested explanations, as he stated he did not see any reason for his transfer to the police station, there having been no formal arrest, and having already undergone an identity check by the police at the hospital (see paragraph 19 above). The first-instance court described the applicant’s attempts to obtain information as having been met by further physical and verbal abuse, to the point that he had had no choice but to desist, a circumstance which the court referred to as “particularly unacceptable” (see paragraph 19 above). Moreover, this treatment had been coupled with the inability of the applicant, who spent approximately five hours in the police station, to contact the outside world in order to make his situation known (see paragraphs 16 and 18 above). In the Court’s view, there can be little doubt that these circumstances must have caused the applicant considerable emotional and psychological distress.

88. Having regard to all the foregoing elements, the Court concludes that the applicant was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and that such treatment should be regarded as both inhuman and degrading.

97. Turning to the disciplinary sphere, the Government have not indicated whether the officers who were charged with offences in connection with the impugned ill-treatment (see paragraph 13 above) were suspended from their duties during the investigation or trial. As to C.S. and F.C, they submitted in their third-party comments that they were suspended from their duties for fifteen days during the investigation pursuant to a provisional order by the preliminary investigations judge that they be placed under house arrest (see paragraphs 36-37 above).

98. Moreover, it is apparent from the third-party submissions that disciplinary proceedings were instituted against C.S. and F.C.. While C.S. was cleared (see paragraph 41 above), F.C. was found liable with regard to a disciplinary offence and was sanctioned with a “written warning” (see paragraph 40 above). As to the other officers involved in the impugned events, while the Government stated that disciplinary proceedings had been brought against a total of eight of them, who were found liable and were all sanctioned with a written warning, they did not furnish any further details or submit supporting documentation in relation to these proceedings.

99. Having regard to all of the above, the Court is not persuaded that the authorities’ overall response to the impugned ill-treatment in the instant case can be considered adequate in terms of its capacity to punish the inhuman and degrading treatment at issue and as having sufficient deterrent effect to prevent the commission of future acts similar to those complained of by the applicant. It follows that the requirements of an effective investigation have not been fully satisfied in the present case.

102. Given the Court’s findings to the effect that the investigation was not effective (see paragraph 99 above), it cannot but conclude that the applicant may still claim to be a “victim” of a breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed.

103. The Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs.