The court took account of the incriminating statements made by the watchman who had been an eyewitness to part of the robbery, a shop manager, passers-by who had arrived the next morning and a policeman

  The Court noted, however, at the relevant time, the lack of a regulatory framework governing both the police’s discretion over the duration of the relevant type of detention in all six instances

    Was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the police respected in the present case, notably in terms of the applicant’s access to the police’s submissions to the Bydgoszcz

The participants, including the applicant, had refused to comply with the police’s request to step away so that the stage and tents could be removed.

Therefore, the police’s failure to take any measures to prevent the crime had to a certain degree contributed to its commission.

  In a decision issued on 19 January 2001, Helsinki District Court also refused the police’s request under the Criminal Investigations Act to oblige the service provider to divulge the identity of

Article   14 in conjunction with Articles   3 and 9 – The police's refusal to intervene promptly was largely due to the applicants' religious convictions.

According to a subsequent police complaint report there was an independent witness who confirmed the police’s account.

    As concerns the police’s actions, the Regional Court reasoned that they were based on section 12(23) of the Law on Police ( likums „Par Policiju” ).

Nor had the investigators assessed whether refusing to have the son medically examined on his arrest and subsequently delaying him medical assistance were compatible with the police’s duties under domestic

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

No disciplinary inquiry into the police’s alleged inaction had even been opened, and no steps had been taken to train the police officers in question on how to respond properly to allegations of domestic

    On 22 January 2009 the applicant paid the fine concerning the use of the mobile phone while driving but lodged a request for judicial review contesting the police’s findings that his seatbelt

    Criminal proceedings The applicant used to work as a policeman. On 10 April 1997 he was arrested on suspicion of having tortured a suspect to death.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about having been beaten up by the policeman and of the authorities’ failure to indict S. for his threat of murder.

    On 16 May 2003 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint for defamation against the journalist who wrote the article and the policeman who was quoted in the article.

He had been seen hanging around parked cars and had been chased and apprehended by an off-duty policeman.

the investigation: no violation; violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 12 April 2006] Facts : The applicants are the grandparents and father of a young man who was shot dead by a policeman

He maintained that the police’s suspicion had only focused on him after they had unlawfully acquired access to the data on X’s mobile telephone.