18419\/13<\/a><\/p>\nJudgment 19.7.2018 [Section I]<\/p>\n
Article 3<\/strong>
\nEffective investigation<\/strong><\/p>\nFailure to hold effective investigation into allegations of degrading treatment in the workplace: violation<\/p>\n
Facts \u2013 The applicant is a civil servant working for the Ministry of Environmental Protection. According to the applicant, she had an argument with her superior over her appraisal report in his office. The latter and his deputy assaulted her, grabbed her hands, insulted her and forcibly took the report away from her. As a result of the violence, she fainted, sustained bodily injuries, received numerous bruises on her hands and was seriously humiliated.<\/p>\n
The applicant reported the incident to the head of staff of the Ministry and the police. The police investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant, questioned her and took statements from her superiors and colleagues. The forensic medical examination confirmed that the applicant had sustained bruises on different parts of her arm. However, all her colleagues who gave statements and who were subordinates of the alleged perpetrators denied the account of events given by the applicant. On the basis of these statements and on the prosecutor\u2019s instructions, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant unsuccessfully complained against the decision.<\/p>\n
Law \u2013 Article 3 (procedural aspect): The applicant had made an arguable claim of degrading treatment which attained the minimum level of severity under Article 3 of the Convention. However, no investigation had ever been launched, nor had any internal investigation been conducted within the Ministry. During the inquiry, the domestic authorities had not made any serious attempts to find out what had happened. No steps had been taken, for example, to take evidence from the applicant\u2019s colleagues under oath in order to avoid any possible problems created by the fact that they were subordinates of the alleged perpetrators. It had not been established how the applicant\u2019s injuries had been inflicted, in what circumstances and whether they were related to the impugned incident. Furthermore, no efforts had been made to clarify certain contradictions in her superior\u2019s statements or to investigate whether his statements were accurate. Nor had any steps been taken by the head of staff of the Ministry or other administrative authorities before the applicant had reported the matter to the police. Having regard to the above-mentioned deficiencies, the State authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).<\/p>\n
Article 41: EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n