The applicant, Mikel Iribarren Pinillos, complained of injuries he had sustained during clashes with the security forces in 1991.

During the demonstration, protestors built barricades and lit fires and the police fired smoke-bombs and tear-gas grenades over a period of several hours. The applicant, who was one of the protestors, was seriously injured when he was struck by a smoke-bomb fired at very short range by the police. At the scene the applicant had stopped breathing, part of his face was burned and was partly paralysed.

In 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Minister of the Interior claiming damages from the administrative authorities in respect of the injuries he had sustained. However, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that the damage he had sustained could not be imputed to the administrative authorities.

In 1997 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the Audiencia Nacional. In a judgment of 1 July 1998 that court allowed part of his claim. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court set aside that judgment and held at final instance that the reaction of the security forces had not been disproportionate and that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been due to chance.

Mr Pinillos then complained to the ECHR relying mainly on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment) and 6 (right to a fair trial). His main argument was that his physical and mental integrity has been interfered on account of the disproportionate nature of the police reaction. He further argued that he was not given an effective investigation during the criminal proceedings, and that no additional investigation had been carried out by the administrative courts.

It was ruled that there had been a violation of Article 3. The ECHR noted that the Spanish criminal courts had not established whether the applicant shared any responsibility for the damage he had sustained. Moreover, the administrative courts had not carried out any further investigation during the administrative complaint proceedings with a view to determining the applicant’s share of liability. The Court considered that he could not be required to bear alone the results of being hit by the smoke-bomb, that the Spanish courts had not determined whether the way the security forces had used the missile was strictly proportionate to the legitimate aim of ending the disturbances.

The Court further noted that the Supreme Court had not taken account of the administrative authorities’ liability for the events as established by the criminal courts. Nor had it correctly examined the question whether the applicant had suffered actual, monetarily quantifiable damage or the causal link between the offence and the damage suffered.

Regarding Article 6, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of this article on account of the excessive length (11 years and ten months) of the proceedings complained of.