ECtHR - B.Ü. v. the Czech Republic, Application No. 9264/15, 06/10/2022

Facts:

A Turkish national alleged mistreatment by Czech police at a detention centre and an ineffective domestic investigation, invoking Articles 3 and 13 ECHR. He filed the application while living in the Czech Republic but was extradited to Türkiye in 2016, where he now resides.

He'd been returned from Switzerland and taken into custody at Prague Airport carrying medication; he initially reported good health but later mentioned regular sedative and painkiller use. Authorities ordered expulsion, a five-year EU re-entry ban, and detention at the Bělá-Jezová Centre under a strict regime over alleged aggressiveness. He claimed severe police violence causing injuries, while the Government said he was aggressive and self-harming, resisting arrest and requiring force and tear gas. Medical exams confirmed a nasal fracture and other injuries alongside notes of extreme aggression and non-cooperation. After transfer to Bělá-Jezová, he was held in a single cell under strict supervision, attempted suicide and was eventually sent to a psychiatric facility, which diagnosed personality disorders and recommended observation given risks to other patients. He stayed in a single cell on a psychologist's recommendation and sometimes refused medication.

Investigations by the Aliens Police Directorate and the General Inspectorate of Security Forces (GISF) found the coercive measures at the airport lawful and proportionate, and GISF's probe into the suicide attempt concluded it was voluntary with no outside involvement. His subsequent criminal complaint alleging police violence and injuries was closed for lack of unlawful conduct; the Prague Municipal Prosecutor declined review, citing no jurisdiction absent criminal proceedings.

His constitutional appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded, with the Constitutional Court accepting that his aggressiveness and the psychiatric recommendation justified isolation.

Decision & reasoning:

Article 3 ECHR — conditions of detention in Bělá-Jezová

The ECtHR noted that the decision imposing that regime flagged an administrative remedy under Article 65 of the Code of Administrative Justice, while Article 82 offered a separate route to challenge unlawful conditions, including interim measures. The applicant used neither and never argued they'd be ineffective. His criminal complaint targeted the airport ill-treatment, not detention conditions, so it wasn't an adequate avenue. Since judicial review of the strict regime and alleged lack of medical care should have gone through those administrative channels, which he didn't pursue, and given no information on the outcome of a pending State Liability Act claim, the Court found domestic remedies unexhausted. This part was declared inadmissible under Article 35(1) and (4).

Article 3 ECHR — procedural aspect

He argued the airport ill-treatment investigation was ineffective as it lacked independent evidence and his meaningful involvement. Though he hadn't used the section 12d State Prosecution Act remedy, the Constitutional Court hadn't required it at the time and had reviewed his appeal on the merits, so requiring the use of that remedy would be overly formalistic. His allegations, backed by medical evidence, were credible enough to trigger Article 3's investigative duty, making the complaint admissible.

The Court reiterated that Article 3 requires an effective official investigation into credible ill-treatment claims, even without formal complaint (Gldani Congregation, Gjini v. Serbia), and that such investigations must be independent, broad, thorough, prompt, allow victim participation, and ensure public scrutiny and a reasoned outcome.

The initial reviews were done by the applicant's own hierarchical superiors and internal police inspection. GISF, though nominally independent, only acted upon referral or formal complaint, relied heavily on internal police findings, skipped basic steps like interviewing the applicant or witnesses, and got involved five weeks after the incident, merely reviewing existing reports. This conduct fell short of Article 3 standards.

His participation was also limited: he wasn't questioned about the incident, wasn't updated on progress or findings, and was denied file access without proper justification (citing Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine), which the Court found disproportionate given the lack of domestic safeguards. The brief GISF notice he received didn't amount to a reasoned decision.

Article 3 ECHR — substantive aspect

The applicant argued the police force used against him at the airport constituted ill-treatment; this was declared admissible. The Court reiterated that force during arrest must be strictly necessary and proportionate to the injuries and circumstances (Petyo Popov, Rustam Khodzhayev), and while Article 3 doesn't ban the use of force outright, it must not be excessive or violating the individual’s dignity (El-Masri, Bouyid).

Regarding the use of pepper spray, the Court noted that it was deployed only after manual techniques failed, while the applicant actively resisted and behaved dangerously; he was promptly seen by a doctor with no ill effects recorded. This was deemed proportionate. Police also couldn't have known of his psychosocial disorder, diagnosed only later, though it may have fueled his aggression.

The Court couldn't conclude beyond reasonable doubt that excessive force or Article 3 treatment occurred, though it noted this uncertainty stemmed partly from the investigation's own flaws. There was no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3.

Other complaints

Regarding his Article 13 claim (no effective remedy for the airport ill-treatment), the Court considered that it had already been addressed under Article 3.

Outcome:

Complaints on ill-treatment at the airport, related investigation, and lack of effective remedy declared admissible. Remaining complaints inadmissible.

Violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 ECHR;

No violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 ECHR;

No separate issue under Article 13 ECHR;

Respondent State is to pay the applicant €12,800 in non-pecuniary damages, plus taxes, within three months of the judgment becoming final. If unpaid, simple interest at ECB marginal lending rate plus 3% until full payment.

Remainder of the applicant’s claim dismissed for just satisfaction.

Subsequent proceedings:

No subsequent proceedings. This judgment became final on 6 January 2023 under Article 44(2) ECHR.

Other sources:

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, 13 January 1993 – Article II § 9(d) (“Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention”).

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Maltese Government on the visit to Malta from 17 to 22 September 2020, CPT/Inf (2021) 1, 10 March 2021.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Slovak Government on the visit to the Slovak Republic from 19 to 28 March 2018, CPT/Inf (2019) 20, 19 June 2019.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Danish Government on the visit to Denmark from 3 to 12 April 2019, CPT/Inf (2019) 35, 7 January 2020.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Czech Government on the visit to the Czech Republic from 1 to 10 April 2014, CPT/Inf (2015) 18, 31 March 2015.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina from 19 to 30 March 2007, CPT/Inf (2009) 25, 14 October 2009.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Czech Government on the visit to the Czech Republic from 25 March to 2 April 2008, CPT/Inf (2009) 8, 5 February 2009.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Austrian Government on the visit to Austria from 14 to 23 April 2004, CPT/Inf (2005) 13, 21 July 2005.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), CPT Standards: “Substantive” sections of the CPT’s General Reports, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 – Rev. 2015.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Government of the Slovak Republic on the visit to Slovakia from 25 June to 7 July 1995, CPT/Inf (97) 2, 3 April 1997.