FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
CASE OF KOV\u00c1CS v. HUNGARY
\n(Applications nos. 21314\/15, 21316\/15, 21317\/15 and 21321\/15)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n29 January 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Kov\u00e1cs v. Hungary,<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Faris Vehabovi\u0107, President,
\nCarlo Ranzoni,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand AndreaTamietti, DeputySection Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 8 January 2019,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in four applications (nos.\u00a021314\/15, 21316\/15, 21317\/15 and 21321\/15) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by four Hungarian nationals, Mr\u00a0R\u00f3bert Kov\u00e1cs (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d), Mr Kriszti\u00e1n Kov\u00e1cs (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), Mr R\u00f3bert Kov\u00e1cs Jr(\u201cthe third applicant\u201d) and Mr\u00a0M\u00e1ri\u00f3\u00a0Kov\u00e1cs (\u201cthe fourth applicant\u201d), on 15 April 2015.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by Mr A. Cech, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tall\u00f3di, Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been ill-treated and discriminated against by the police in breach of Article 3, read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 December 2017notice of the complaints concerning Articles\u00a03 and 14 was given to the Government and the remainder of application no.\u00a021316\/15 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule\u00a054 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 March 2018 third-party comments were received from the European Roma Rights Centre, which had been granted leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the procedure (Article 36 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 \u00a7 3 (a)).<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee of three judges. Having examined the objection, the Court dismisses it.<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were born in 1976, 1981, 1995 and 1989respectively and live in Karcsa.They belong to the Roma minority.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 September 2013 the applicants, riding in a car driven by the first applicant, arrived at a petrol station in S\u00e1toralja\u00fajhely, at about midnight.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 version of the events<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0At the petrol station two police officers called on the applicants to identify themselves, for no apparent reason. When the first applicant produced his ID, the officers made derogatory remarks about the applicants\u2019Roma origin. Although the applicants offered no resistance, the first applicant was hit in the chest, pressed violently against the car and handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Two additional police cars arrived and the applicants were transported to the S\u00e1toralja\u00fajhely police station.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0While in the car, the first applicant was hit in the spine and, once at the police station, was dragged, with his bottom against the ground, into the building while being kicked repeatedly. Inside the police station he was hit repeatedly while held in a detention room.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0At the police station, the second applicant\u2019s trousers were pulled off and his testicles squeezed; he was repeatedly hit and kicked and his back was injured with a sharp object. While being assaulted by four or five officers, he was also insulted and told that he, a Roma, should die, or else move away from S\u00e1toralja\u00fajhely.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0The third applicant was repeatedly hit and kicked at the petrol station and in the patrol vehicle, but not at the police station.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0The fourth applicant was handcuffed, led to a round table inside the police station, his handcuffs were attached to a leg of the table and his leg was then kicked so that he fell under the table, where he was repeatedly kicked or hit in the head. As a result of the beating, his wrist broke.<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0When the first applicant asked for a doctor, this was refused by the officers who said that he could have a doctor once he was dead. On release, the officers wanted him to sign a waiver stating he had not been assaulted; since he refused to do so, an officer signed the waiver for him. Intimidated, the other applicants signed the waiver.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0The Government\u2019s version of the events<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0Prior to their arrival at the petrol station, the applicants had had an altercation with the staff of a local night club where they had not beenserved for apparently beingintoxicated. Police Officers Gy.R. and M.P., passing by the petrol station in a patrol vehicle, recognised the car described by the staff of the night club, stopped and proceeded to check the applicants\u2019identities atabout 12.45 a.m. The applicants did not co-operate and behaved aggressively towards the officers, calling them names. The officers called in reinforcements. They isolated the first and second applicantsfrom the others, handcuffed them with their handsbehind their backs by applying physical restraint, and thenplaced them in the patrol car. The applicants were yelling gross insults at them.<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0As backup, Police Officers K.L.J., H.Z., M.D., B.R. and D.P.Cs. arrived at the petrol station. They applied physical restraint and handcuffed the third and fourth applicants, and placed them in the police vehicle. All applicants were then transferred to the police station where they were held until after 3 a.m.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0In the ensuing proceedings, the first applicant stated that he had handed over his wallet containing his ID card to the officers immediately upon being requested to do so.However, two employees of the petrol station testified that the first and second applicantshad refused to prove their identities and had addressedthe officers in an unacceptable manner, whereas the latter had instructed the applicants in a business-like, official manner.<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicantalso stated in his testimony that he must have been hit on the jaw after he had been seated in the patrol car, for he could not remember anything afterwards until he had been pulled out of the car outside the police station. However, in the original criminal complaint filed by the applicants,no mention had been made of anysuch blow; and no corresponding injuryhad been recorded in the ensuing medical report \u2013 in which it had,on the other hand,been recorded that the first applicant had not become unconscious and had been able to rememberthe events clearly.Similarly, the criminal complaint filed by the applicants had not contained any reference to what the first applicant stated in his subsequent testimony, namely that he had been kicked in the head\u2013 his left temple \u2013 on the flight of steps leading to the entrance of the police station. According to the first applicant, his son, the third applicant,had also seen this. However,the latterhad not been able tocorroboratethis in his testimony.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0The fourth applicant stated that he had been handcuffed to the leg of a round table. The on-site inspection was unable to confirm this allegation since there had been no round table in the corridor in question at the police station. Furthermore, the fourth applicant alleged that he had suffered a fracture of his left scaphoid bone after he had fallen under the table following being handcuffed to the table leg, where one of the police officers had kept kicking him every ten to fifteen minutes for four to five hours, from the beginning of his detention until his release. He alleged that most of the kicks had hit his head andthat there had even been a footprint on his head. His wrist had allegedly been fractured when a kick had hit the handcuff on ahandthat he had raised to protect his head. Although the medical examination revealed abrasions of different sizes on various parts of his head, none of those had exceeded 2.5 cm in length and there had been no lesions that had matched a shoe print.In the forensic expert\u2019s opinion, the medically documented injuries of the fourth applicant \u2013 epithelial abrasions of the forehead, the left eyebrow, the area anterior to the left ear and both knees (see paragraph 24below) \u2013 could have been caused when he had been handcuffed, a measure that he had resisted; the injuries had not been typical ofa beating and had onlyindicated a weak impact. Redness of the wrist had also beenobserved but had likely been caused by the handcuffing; whereas the left scaphoid bone fracture had been a residual condition of a former fracture that could have occurred yearsearlier (see paragraph 28 below).<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0The third applicant stated initially that he had been hit by one of the officers at the petrol station, and that his arm had then been tightly squeezed while he had been escorted to the patrol car. Later however, he alleged that he had been hit on the back of the head and his arm while inside the patrol carbut had not otherwise been assaulted. He could not give an acceptable explanation for this contradiction.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0In their testimonies, both the first and the second applicants said that they had been placed in two adjacent detention rooms and repeatedly assaulted every ten to fifteen minutes by several officers for hours on end, involving many blows. However, the medical findings recorded in both cases had indicated only smaller abrasions and bruises. In relation to the first applicant, the fourth applicant mentioned assaults that the first applicanthimself had not mentioned during his questioning and which were not described in the criminal report filed by the first applicanteither: namely that upon arrival at the police building he had been pulled outof the car and kicked in the spine.<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants stated that at the petrol station, one of the officershad said over the radio that \u201cwe are taking in gypsies\u201d or \u201cgypsy kids\u201d. However, the audio recordings of the radio trafficdid not contain such a statement. One officerhad said at one point only that \u201cfour young Roma men kicked up a fuss at the petrol station\u201d.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0Neither the police officers, nor the security guard on duty at the police station, nor the petrol station staff had provided any support for the allegation that the applicants, who had been under the influence of alcohol and talking to the officers in an extremely rude way, had been assaulted either at the petrol station or in the police building.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 medical examination<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were examined at S\u00e1toralja\u00fajhely Hospital at about 6\u00a0p.m. on 4 September 2013. The first applicant was found to have suffusions in his left ear, on his face and chest, on his left arm and elbow, and on his right arm, abrasions on his buttocks, and erythema on both wrists. The second applicantsustained suffusions on his neck and right upper arm, abrasions on his back and lower right arm, and erythema on both wrists. The third applicant was found to have suffusions on his neck and around his right collar bone as well as suffusions and abrasions on both upper arms. The fourth applicanthad abrasions on the forehead, above the left eye, next to his ears and on both knees, erythema on both wrists and a fracture of the left scaphoid bone; it was uncertain whether the latter was a recent or an inveterate injury.<\/p>\n
D.\u00a0\u00a0The ensuing proceedings<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants lodged a criminal complaint on 18 September 2013, accusing the officers of ill-treatment. The case was investigated by the Miskolc Investigation Office and, subsequently, by the Debrecen Bureau of the Central Prosecutorial Investigation Office. The public prosecutors in charge of the case obtained video footage, a recording of the police radio traffic, medical reports, police documents, opinions of medical and graphology experts, and testimonies of witnesses, suspects and victims.<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 April 2014 the Independent Police Complaints Board, which had been approached by the applicants\u2019 lawyerin parallel to the proceedings outlined above, issued a report on the first applicant\u2019s case. It found that handcuffing him had not been justified in the circumstances and had been contrary to human dignity, especially since his hands had been handcuffed behind his back. It also found that his prolonged detention at the police station hadbreached his right to liberty. However, in terms of the entire incident, the Board was not convinced that excessive force had been applied.<\/p>\n
With regard to the remainder of the issues, namely the first applicant\u2019s rights to health, human dignity, equal treatment and non-discrimination, the Board identified no breach of his fundamental rights, essentially for want of conclusive evidence and because there had been differing versions of events that could not be reconciled.<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 May 2014 the Board issued a report on the fourth applicant\u2019s case. Its conclusions were similar to those in the first applicant\u2019s case.<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 and 29 May 2014 the opinions of two forensic experts were obtained in the fourth applicant\u2019s criminal case. One expert was of the view that the abrasions and erythema he had sustained could be explained by the melee that had occurred when he had resisted being handcuffed or by his immobilisation. As regards the broken scaphoid bone, the expert found that it was an inveterate lesion that had occurred at least six to eight months prior to the incident. In sum, the expert stated that the fourth applicant\u2019s allegation that he had been assaulted for hours on end was not supported by the medical findings. In the other expert opinion, a radiologist stated that the broken scaphoid bone could not have been related to the incident and had occurred years earlier.<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 July 2014 the Board issued reports on the second and third applicants\u2019cases. Its conclusions were again similar to those in the first applicant\u2019s case.<\/p>\n
30.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 August 2014 the Investigation Office discontinued the prosecution against the police officers. It held that the testimonies of the applicants had been exaggerated, contradictory and modified several times, and that the findings of fact could not enable it to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the injuries had been deliberately caused by the officers exceeding the use of force necessitated by the applicants\u2019 own conduct.<\/p>\n
31.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 October 2014 the Attorney General\u2019s Office rejected a complaint by the applicants against the discontinuation order. It pointed out that the witness testimonies and the audio recordings refuted the applicants\u2019 allegations of racist motivationand utterances. It further underlined that the applicants\u2019 injuries had not provided evidence of any use of force exceeding that whichhad been prompted by the applicants\u2019 own conduct; it also observed that in the forensic medical expert\u2019s opinion (see paragraph\u00a028 above), the fourth applicant\u2019s scaphoid bone fracturehad been a pre-existing condition. As regards the lawfulness and proportionality of the use of force, the Attorney General\u2019s Office held that the information available on the case was insufficient to reconcile the opposing versions.<\/p>\n
32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 attention was drawn to the possibility of pursuing their complaint as substitute private prosecutors, but they did not avail themselves of this legal avenue.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n
33.\u00a0\u00a0Given the similarity of the applications, the Court decides to join them in accordance with Rule 42 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that they had been ill-treated by the police, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/p>\n
35.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted the available domestic remedies in that they had not pursued a substitute private prosecution (see paragraph 32 above). The applicants disagreed.<\/p>\n
36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this legal avenue has already been examined in cases such asM.F. v. Hungary (no. 45855\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 35-36, 31 October 2017) and Tarj\u00e1ni v. Hungary (no. 29609\/16, \u00a7\u00a7 31-32, 10 October 2017). In those cases, it was held that the applicants could not be reproached fornot pursuing this remedy.The Court finds no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present applications. The Government\u2019s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must thus be rejected.<\/p>\n
37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaintis not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/p>\n
38.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsargued that they had suffered injuries at the hands of the police, for which the Government must account. Their own conduct had not been of the kind that warranted coercion, let alone the use of excessive force. Furthermore, the ensuing investigation had been insufficient, in particular because more weight had been given to the police officers\u2019 version of events than to theirs; no adequate efforts had been made to secure the closed circuit television recordings of inside the police station; no conclusive forensic medical opinion had been procured on the fourth applicant\u2019s injuries but the persisting doubt had been held against all the applicants; and the reliability of the signatures on the waivers signed by the applicants on their release (see paragraph 14 above) had not been investigated.<\/p>\n
39.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the light injuries sustained by the applicants had been caused by the lawful application of handcuffing and physical restraint. The force applied had not been excessive.<\/p>\n
40.\u00a0\u00a0The European Roma Rights Centre submitted that members of the Roma minority suffered institutional racism, especially when encountering police officers \u2013 a phenomenon that it stated was best called \u201canti-Gypsyism\u201d. When a number of similar cases of police brutality against Roma come before the Court from the same State, this represented a worsening situation, which should be treated as such. The current case was an example of anti-Gypsyism and institutional racism; and the Court was invited not to shy away from using those terms. According to the intervener, there was an institutional failure in Hungary to deal with police brutality against Roma.<\/p>\n
41.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s relevant case-law has recently been summarised in, among many other authorities, the M.F. v. Hungary case (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a042-45).<\/p>\n
42.\u00a0\u00a0In the present application, the Court observes that it has not been disputed by the parties that the applicants were in good health before the incident in question.<\/p>\n
43.\u00a0\u00a0On their release from custody, all of them had injuries, namely, numerous bruises, abrasions, suffusions and erythema (see paragraph 24 above), which, for the Court, attain the minimum level of severity required to bring Article 3 of the Convention into play. This is so even if the issue of the fourth applicant\u2019s broken scaphoid bone is discarded, given the forensic opinion pointing to its inveterate nature (see paragraph 28 above).<\/p>\n
44.\u00a0\u00a0It remains to be considered whether the State should be held responsible under Article 3 for these injuries.<\/p>\n
45.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the applicants were apprehended in the midst of a melee which had evolved in the context of an identity check. It also notes the applicants\u2019 allegation that their ill-treatment started at the petrol station, continued in the police cars and persisted afterwards inside the police building. It notes,on the other hand,the Government\u2019s assertion that the coercion applied by the police was necessitated by the applicants\u2019 alleged resistance to a lawful measure. However, it takes the view that the Government have not furnished any convincing or credible arguments which would provide a basis to explain or justify the degree of force used during the operation. In particular, the Court takes cognisance of the Independent Police Complaints Board\u2019s reports, according to which the applicants\u2019 handcuffing \u2013 around which the Government\u2019s explanation revolves \u2013 had been unjustified and contrary to human dignity (see paragraphs 26, 27 and 29 above). The use of coercive force in order to apply a measure which has been found to be in breach of the applicants\u2019 fundamental rights to liberty and to human dignity cannot, in the Court\u2019s opinion, provide valid justification for the injuries sustained by the applicants. The Court would also note that apparently the police officers did not sustain any injuries or recount physically violent behaviour on the applicants\u2019 side; rather, it was only verbal aggression that was reproached to them. For the Court, however, such conduct cannot provide justification for use of force entailing injuries such as in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380\/09, \u00a7 108, ECHR 2015).<\/p>\n
46.\u00a0\u00a0Since the Government have not shown evidence to the contrary, the Court cannot but conclude that, even assuming that the situation objectively required the use of force, the extent to which it was applied was unjustified. Such use of force resulted in injury to the applicants, amounting to degrading treatment.<\/p>\n
47.\u00a0\u00a0The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It considers that it is not necessary to address separately the parties\u2019 further arguments about the details of the investigation.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
48.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsfurther complained of a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Article 14 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.\u201d<\/p>\n
49.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted that their ill-treatment by the police had been the result of racial discrimination, that is to say, it had been due to their Roma origin, attested by the numerous racist verbal insults voiced by the officers during the incident. Furthermore, the ensuing investigations had not adequately addressed this particular issue.<\/p>\n
50.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that it was the applicants\u2019own conduct rather than their ethnic origin that had led to the incident. The authorities in the investigation had paid due attention to the possibility of racial bias in the case.<\/p>\n
51.\u00a0\u00a0The European Roma Rights Centre submitted that the Court should not apply the \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d test to determine whether there was a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with the substantive limb of Article 3 in cases such as the present one; rather, the burden of proof should shift to the respondent State.<\/p>\n
52.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that there is no convincing evidence in the case file disclosing any appearance of discriminatory conduct on the part of the police (contrastMoldovan and Others v. Romania(no. 2), nos. 41138\/98 and 64320\/01, \u00a7 139, ECHR 2005\u2011VII (extracts)). It is true that, in the Government\u2019s submission, one officer said at one point that \u201cfour young Roma men kicked up a fuss at the petrol station\u201d (see paragraph 22 above). However, the Court is not persuaded by this element alone, in contrast with the fact that the racist insults referred to by the applicants are not supported by any evidence and that the Independent Policing Complaint Board was, for its part, unable to identify any appearance or element of racial discrimination. Moreover, the Court notes that the investigation addressed this question and included,in particular,an examination of the audio recordings of the police radio traffic (see paragraph 25 above), but revealed no evidence in support of the applicants\u2019 complaint.<\/p>\n
53.\u00a0\u00a0This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
54.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/p>\n
55.\u00a0\u00a0Each applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
56.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested this claim as excessive.<\/p>\n
57.\u00a0\u00a0The Court awards, on the basis of equity,each applicant EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/p>\n
58.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsjointly claimed EUR 1,500plus VAT for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, and EUR 7,765plus VAT for those incurred before the Court. The latter amount corresponded to 51\u00a0hours of legal work billable at an hourly rate of EUR 150 plus VAT and to 2.3 hours of paralegal work billable at an hourly rate of EUR 50 plus VAT. Moreover, they jointly claimed EUR 500 for the costs of medical examinations undertaken for the purposes of the domestic proceedings.<\/p>\n
59.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested these claims.<\/p>\n
60.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award to the applicants, jointly, the sum of EUR 6,000 covering costs under all heads.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/p>\n
61.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe complaint concerning Article 3 admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n
(i)\u00a0EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n
(ii)\u00a0EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 January 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
AndreaTamietti\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Faris Vehabovi\u0107
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n