IVANOV v. ROMANIA - 81315/17 (Judgment : No Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee) [2021] ECHR 903 (02 November 2021)

IVANOV v. ROMANIA - 81315/17 (Judgment : No Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee) [2021] ECHR 903 (02 November 2021)

The Court found that the investigation into the applicant's allegations was prompt, thorough, and effective, with no omissions in evidence collection, and that the only proven injuries were caused by necessary and proportionate force during apprehension due to the applicant's own conduct. There was no substantiation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ECHR 903
Parties
Applicant: Constantin-Daniel Ivanov; Respondent: Romanian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application admissible; no violation of Article 3 ECHR found.
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Police Use of Force, Effective Investigation, Ill Treatment in Detention
Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Article 3 ECHR Police Use of Force Effective Investigation Ill Treatment in Detention

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constantin-Daniel Ivanov

Applicant

Romanian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by police contrary to Article 3 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the investigation into the applicant's allegations was effective under Article 3 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the investigation into the applicant's allegations was prompt, thorough, and effective, with no omissions in evidence collection, and that the only proven injuries were caused by necessary and proportionate force during apprehension due to the applicant's own conduct. There was no substantiation of ill-treatment during detention. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 3 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application admissible; no violation of Article 3 ECHR found.