Door de media gehypete politiearrestatie in strijd met EVRM

EHRM 31 maart 2016, IEF 15836; IEFbe 1753; req.nr. 55388/10 (Stoyaniv e.a. tegen Bulgarije)
Mediarecht. Bij een serie politiearrestaties was ook de media aanwezig, die verslag deden en uitzonden op TV en nieuwssites. Bij de arrestatie van Stayanov(i) was er geen rechtvaardiging om hem/haar gedurende bijna een uur geboeid naakt of enkel in ondergoed buiten zijn huis te laten zitten. Veiligheidsdiensten mogen niet op deze wijze degraderend handelen (art. 3 EVRM). Mede door het online verspreiden van de beelden door het ministerie van informatie, is er schending van artikel 8 EVRM. Opmerkingen van de minister (en politici en het openbaar ministerie) verder gingen dat het overbrengen van informatie over de strafrechtelijke procedure en levert schending van 6 lid 2 EVRM op.

Uit het persbericht:

In December 2009 the Interior Ministry launched an operation to stop a criminal group which had organised and carried out a number of kidnappings in Bulgaria. The high-profile police operation was nicknamed “Shameless”. On 17 December 2009 Mr Petrov was arrested in that connection. On the day of his arrest, the Interior Ministry declared that Mr Petrov had taken part in the kidnappings and that he was one of those who had supplied vehicles for that purpose. The criminal proceedings against Mr Petrov were closed by a discontinuance decision of 17 August 2010.
At around 6 a.m. on 10 February 2010, as part of the “Octopus” operation, an intervention team from the Ministry of the Interior burst into the applicants’ house and searched it without a warrant. According to the applicants, the inside of the house was filmed by a cameraman. On 11 February 2010 Mr Petrov was charged with participating in an armed criminal group engaging in the handling of stolen goods, tax fraud, prostitution and racketeering. On 12 February 2010 the Sofia criminal court remanded Mr Petrov and his presumed accomplices in custody. On 18 February 2010 the Court of Appeal decided to release Mr Petrov on bail.

(...) Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained that his arrest had been filmed and that the recording had been passed on to the media by the Interior Ministry’s press unit.

(...) Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), both applicants further argued that the media coverage of the search of their home had amounted to an unjustified breach of their privacy. Lastly, relying on Article 13 they complained that there had been no domestic remedies by which to seek redress for the violations of Articles 3, 6 § 2 and 8.

Article 3
In the case of Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria the Court noted that Plamen and Yordan Stoyanovi had been suspected of belonging to a mafia-type organisation. They had held firearm permits and the police had found firearms and munitions at their homes. The Court did not blame the authorities for deciding to involve the special forces of the Interior Ministry or for the immobilisation and handcuffing of Plamen and Yordan Stoyanovi. On the other hand, it found that there had been no justification for leaving Yordan Stoyanov handcuffed and naked for almost one hour or for forcing Plamen Stoyanov to remain seated on the ground outside his apartment block, handcuffed and in his underwear. The Court therefore considered that the two applicants had been subjected to degrading treatment by the security forces.

Article 6 § 2
In the case of Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, Plamen and Yordan Stoyanovi complained of the comments by the Prime Minister and of the many statements by the Interior Minister in the media. The Court observed that the Prime Minister had not expressly mentioned the two applicants but had merely voiced his confidence in the work of the security forces during the “Octopus” operation.
However, it noted that the Interior Minister had been interviewed on national television on the day both applicants were arrested, before their appearance in a court competent to adjudicate on the lawfulness of their detention and in the context of intense media interest in the case. The Court found that the Interior Minister’s comments had gone beyond mere communication of information on the progress of the criminal investigations and might have given the general public the impression that the two applicants held a special status within the hierarchy of a powerful mafiatype organisation. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 2.

Article 8 (right to respect for private an family life)
In the case of Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, the Court noted that the Interior Ministry’s video recording of the “Octopus” operation had contained images of Alexey Petrov being arrested. The video had subsequently been put on line by the Ministry’s information department. The Court found that that interference had not been covered by any law satisfying the criteria set out in its case-law, but stemmed from a desire to obtain images of police operations that had attracted intensive public and media interest. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Bulgaria was to pay the applicant:
- 30,000 euros (EUR) jointly to Plamen Stoyanov, Petranka Stoyanova and Plamen Plamenov Stoyanov, and 50,000 EUR jointly to Yordan Stoyanov, Antonia Ivanova, Emilia Stoyanova, Monika Stoyanova and Veselin Stoyanov in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and 5,000 EUR for costs and expenses;
- 6,000 EUR to Alexey Petrov in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 3,703.26 EUR for costs and expenses.
- 5,000 EUR to Anton Petrov and 10,000 EUR to Krasimira Ivanova in respect of non-pecuniary damage.