CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8773B649 { width:25.2pt; display:inline-block } .sB81C5FD1 { width:141.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF SKORUPA v. POLAND (Application no. 44153/15)     JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Degrading treatment inflicted on vulnerable applicant at a police station, in the course of his processing for sobering-up, by keeping him on the floor with his arms handcuffed behind his back for an hour • Treatment excessive and not made strictly necessary by applicant’s own conduct • Ineffective investigation   STRASBOURG 16 June 2022   FINAL   16/09/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Skorupa v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak, President,   Péter Paczolay,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Alena Poláčková,   Raffaele Sabato,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   44153/15) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Ryszard Skorupa (“the applicant”), on 31 August 2015; the decision to give notice of the application to the Polish Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 May 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant in the course of his processing for sobering-up (Article 3), as well as the unlawfulness of his detention at the sobering-up centre (Article 5). THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Czerwionka-Leszczyny. He was represented by Ms D. Salabun, a lawyer practising in Rybnik. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agents, Ms   J.   Chrzanowska and, subsequently, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND AND CASE OVERVIEW 5 .     At the time of the events that are the subject of the present application, the applicant was 63 years old. 6 .     According to various medical records in the case file, sometime in the past the applicant broke one of his vertebrae; in 1998 he underwent surgery twice for a herniated disc; in 2006 he suffered a heart attack; in 2006 he was diagnosed with cervical degenerative disc disease and coronary artery disease and, in 2012, with degenerative joint disease of the shoulder. In addition, in 2012 and 2013 the applicant underwent surgery twice for glaucoma. 7.     On 12 March 2014 at 9.00 p.m. the applicant, who had been drinking, was stopped by two police officers when he was on his way home from a nearby bar. He was then taken to Czerwionka police station, which was situated 500 metres further down the road, in the same street as his home. From there the applicant was taken to Zabrze sobering-up centre which was situated 35 kilometres away from his home. The applicant was released from there the following day at about 11.30 a.m. THE APPLICANT’S ARREST Submissions by the applicant 8 .     On the day of the incident, the applicant had had a beer in the early afternoon at home. He had then had two 0.5 litre beers and one bottle of beer, which he had not finished, in a bar, where he had stayed from 4.30 to 7.30   p.m. 9.     On his way home, the applicant had had the impression that he had been walking in a straight line. In Kombatantów Street, a small street in a residential area (see paragraph 20 below), when he was around 300 metres away from his house, he had seen a female police officer, who had called to him “Sir, are you feeling unwell?” A   police van had been parked nearby in the street and a male police officer had been standing next to it. The applicant had replied that he was fine. The female police officer had informed the applicant politely that he had been walking on the wrong side of the road and staggering. She had also inquired about the scratch on his forehead and asked the applicant to show her his identity card. The applicant had told the female police officer that his ID was at his house, which was nearby. He had refused to give his surname. 10 .     At this point the male police officer had approached and immediately, without any warning, twisted the applicant’s arms behind his back and pushed him in such a way that the applicant had hit his head on the police van. The male police officer had handcuffed the applicant’s arms behind his back and pushed him to the floor of the van. The officers had then driven the applicant to the police station. Submissions by the arresting officers made in the course of the criminal investigation Female officer, K.S. 11 .     While patrolling down 3 Maja Street in their police van, K.S. had noticed that several cars ahead were slowing down. She had then seen the applicant getting up from the road. It had been her understanding that the cars had been slowing down so as not to hit the applicant. K.S. believed that the applicant had fallen over from the side of the road with the lawn and hedge (see paragraph 20 below). When the police van had pulled over, the applicant had started to walk away through the hedge, in the direction of the blocks of flats (ibid.). The applicant had been visibly staggering. When called, the applicant had sped away from the police. K.S. had got out of the van and walked towards the applicant. She had noticed an abrasion on the applicant’s forehead and asked if he was feeling well. The applicant had refused to answer any questions and asked to be left alone. K.S. had smelled alcohol on the applicant. She had asked where he lived. Her patrol partner, Officer M.T., had approached K.S. and the applicant. The applicant had refused to give his name and had addressed the officers as “children”, “little girl” and “little boy”. 12.     The police officers and the applicant had walked to the police van, which the applicant had leaned on. The applicant had not responded to any questions and had tried to walk away from the officers. 13.     The applicant had then become agitated, clenching his fists and mumbling insults and threats at the police officers. Unable to make the applicant stand still or to obtain any coherent information from him, M.T., having given a warning, had handcuffed the applicant’s arms behind his back. The reason for the measure had been the applicant’s aggressive behaviour and his lack of cooperation with the police. 14.     During the arrest, the applicant had not said that he lived nearby or that he could fetch his identity card from home. 15 .     M.T. had then sat the applicant on the back seat of the police van. The officer had not pushed the applicant against the van or to its floor. K.S. had sat in front of the applicant at the back. Inside the van, the applicant had tried to stand up and eventually he had sat down on the floor leaning against the back seat. Male officer, M.T. 16 .     The male officer corroborated all of K.S.’s submissions as described above (see paragraphs 11-15 above). In addition, he stated that he had seen the applicant fall down face-first on the lawn next to the street. 17 .     The applicant had had a passive-aggressive attitude and had not responded to the police officers’ orders. He had not attacked or insulted the officers, but had raised his arms as if he were protecting himself from them. That was when M.T. had decided that handcuffing the applicant was necessary. The situation had been fluid and M.T. could not remember if he had warned the applicant that he would handcuff him. 18.     The officer remembered that the applicant had said that he lived nearby but he had not given his address. M.T. explained that police were by law required to take an inebriated person to the police station first. Only then could they decide whether to take such a person to his or her home or to a sobering-up centre. 19 .     The applicant had resisted so M.T. had been obliged to use some force to take the applicant to the police van and then to put him inside. The officer had achieved the latter by applying pressure to the applicant’s shoulders. The applicant had sat on the floor of the van. K.S. had stayed near the applicant to watch over him during the journey. Documents 20 .     The applicant submitted photos of the place where he claimed to have been arrested (see paragraph 9 above). The images show a wide, two ‑ lane road – 3 Maja Street – with a pavement on one side and a lawn and hedge on the other (see paragraph 11 above). The road runs between some blocks of flats, parallel to the narrower, two-lane, Kombatantów Street (see paragraph   9 above), which is closer to the residential area. The applicant’s handwritten notes on the photos read as follows: “Photo no. 6 shows the place (an opening in the hedge) where I was walking on Kombatantów Street. The photo was taken from 3   Maja Street. It shows the lawn and an opening in the hedge. Kombatantów Street is visible in the background. Photo no. 8 [shows] where I was arrested on Kombatantów Street.” On the photo in question, the applicant put a cross on the pavement which is situated between the hedge and Kombatantów Street (see paragraphs 9 and   11 above). 21.     On 12 March 2014 at 9.35 p.m., the female arresting officer, K.S., drew up a report of the applicant’s arrest for the purposes of the sobering-up centre ( protokół doprowadzenia w celu wytrzeźwienia ) (see paragraph   113 below). The report contains the following details and remarks, in so far as relevant: the applicant’s personal details, including his address, with the note “The applicant’s identity was established on the basis of his oral submissions”; the applicant was inebriated and had been found in circumstances that threatened his own and other people’s life and limb, in particular, that he had been found stumbling on the lawn next to 3 Maja Street. In the paragraph about the reasons why the officers had refrained from taking the applicant to his house, the option “lack of information about [the applicant’s] place of residence” had not been checked, the officers had checked “because of [his] aggressive behaviour”. THE APPLICANT’S DETENTION AT THE POLICE STATION Submissions by the applicant 22 .     The male arresting officer, M.T., had taken the applicant to the police station, pushing him on the way. Once inside, M.T. had pushed the applicant into the cell so violently that the applicant had fallen to the floor. That position had been very uncomfortable for the applicant. The applicant had not asked for his handcuffs to be loosened. He had been verbally insulted by an unidentified police officer. Later, an unidentified police officer had loosened (or, according to other submissions by the applicant, taken off) the applicant’s handcuffs and had then kicked him several times in the chest, ribs and abdomen. The applicant subsequently told the doctor appointed for the purpose of the investigation (see paragraphs 103 and 111 below) that that treatment had not left any visible marks, and that all the injuries described in the certificate of 13   March 2014 (see paragraphs   99 ‑ 101 below) had been caused by his treatment at the sobering-up centre. Submissions by the female arresting officer, K.S. 23 .     K.S. had not seen M.T. walking the applicant to the police station. When she had arrived at the station, the applicant had been sitting on the floor leaning against the wall, inside the cell (see paragraph 47 below). 24.     At the station, K.S. had found a medical prescription in the applicant’s bag with his name on it. The applicant had refused to confirm that was his name. 25.     The applicant’s identity and address had ultimately been established by the station’s duty officer. 26.     K.S. had drawn up the arrest report (see paragraph 21 above). As a junior officer, she had not had much experience and had had to frequently consult M.T. (see paragraphs 50 in fine and 54 below). She had also asked the applicant if he was feeling well and whether he was suffering from any ailments. The applicant had told her in response that he was fine and that he was not suffering from any illness (see paragraph 49 below). 27.     Having found out the applicant’s address, the officers had still decided not to take the applicant home because of his aggressive behaviour . 28.     When, at 10.00 p.m., the new shift had arrived (see paragraph   36 below), the station’s duty officer had decided that the night-shift officers should take the applicant to a sobering-up centre. Submissions by the male arresting officer, M.T. 29.     M.T. corroborated the submissions of K.S. 30.     In addition, he said that when taking the applicant to the station, he had had to support him because the applicant had been staggering (see paragraphs 60-61 below). 31.     M.T. denied pushing the applicant into the police station or witnessing anyone insulting the applicant or kicking him in his abdomen or ribs. 32.     M.T. also said that he had not loosened or changed the applicant’s handcuffs because he had already ensured when he had put them on that they had been loose enough (see paragraph 56 below). 33.     At the station, the applicant had continued to shout and insult the officers. He had called on them to beat him up so that he could then have them all dismissed from their jobs. 34 .     An alcohol test had not been carried out on the applicant at the police station. 35.     The officer acknowledged that the decision to take the applicant to the sobering-up centre instead of home had been his. He explained that the applicant had been aggressive and taking a person in such a state to his home risked causing a family row. Submissions by the officers of Czerwionka police station 36 .     The two officers from Czerwionka police station, M.R and M.B., had started their night shift at 10.00 p.m. The applicant had not had any visible injuries and he had not voiced any complaints. The applicant had been visibly inebriated. 37.     M.B. had changed the applicant’s handcuffs because M.T., whose shift had been ending, had had to retrieve his own. They had not been too tight on the applicant’s wrists. The applicant had resisted so the officers had had to hold him (see paragraph 56 below). 38.     The police officers had not witnessed the applicant being beaten or insulted at the station. 39.     The applicant had been taken to the sobering-up centre in Zabrze (see   paragraphs 60 in fine and 61 in fine below). One police officer had driven the van and the other had sat in the back with the applicant. The applicant had made threats, confusing the two police officers who had been driving him with those who had arrested him earlier. Documents Paper documents 40 .     The Government submitted an undated form with the title “Instruction notice [ pouczenie ] for a person taken for sobering-up”. They explained that the document had been given to the applicant at Czerwionka police station once the decision had been made to transfer him to the sobering-up centre. The form contains instructions on the right to and the procedure for appealing against placement in a sobering-up centre. The form further states that the applicant, having been informed of his rights, had not made any statement (“ nic nie oświadczył ”) and had refused to sign the form. The form bears an illegible signature of an unidentified person. 41.     On 3 April 2014 the chief of Czerwionka police station drew up a report ( notatka służbowa ) which contains the following information, in so far as relevant. The chief officer had watched the camera footage from the station recorded on 12 March 2013 between 9 and 10.20 p.m. (see paragraphs 43 et seq. below). The footage showed the applicant’s arrival in the police van (at   9.15 p.m.), his being taken to the station by Officer M.T., and then being taken from the station by two officers (M.B. and M.R. – see paragraph   61 below). The footage also showed, at 9.16 p.m., M.T. walking with the applicant in the corridor inside the station and, at 10.15   p.m., M.B. and M.R walking the applicant out of the building through the same corridor (see paragraph   60 below). Another camera recorded the sequence of events described below which involved the applicant, M.T., K.S., M.B. and M.R. The timings are as follows: at 9.16 p.m. M.T. put the applicant in the cell (see paragraphs 45-46 below); at 10.00 p.m. there was more activity in the station because of the change of shifts (see paragraph   53 below); from 10:05:50 to   10:07:18 (p.m.), M.T. and M.B. were inside the applicant’s cell (see paragraph 56 below); and from 10:15:15 to 10:15:55 (p.m.), M.B. and M.R. walked into the cell, picked the applicant up and walked out with him (see   paragraph 59 below) . 42.     The chief of the station also described the sequence of events as established on the basis of various reports and conversations with all the officers who had taken part in processing the applicant on 12 March 2014. He recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against the officers because there had been no appearance of abuse of power in respect of the applicant. Video-recording from Czerwionka police station 43 .     The applicant submitted two CD-ROMs containing video-footage from six cameras inside Czerwionka police station. The footage does not contain any audio (see paragraph 116 below). 44 .     The file called 21100600 contains footage from a camera positioned near the ceiling of a long, narrow corridor. The footage lasts one hour and ten minutes. A barred cell is partially visible in the background. The image of the background is not completely clear. A wooden door situated on the right of the corridor, more or less halfway between the camera and the cell, is wide open throughout approximately half of the duration of the footage, covering the right side of the cell. 45 .     At timestamp 05:46 of the recording in question (which corresponds to 9.16 p.m.), a police officer – presumably the male arresting officer, M.T. – walks in through the door on the right, leading an older man of average build – presumably the applicant. M.T. and the applicant are only visible from behind. The applicant’s hands are handcuffed behind his back and he is staggering slightly. 46 .     Between then and when the timestamp of the recording reads 06:27 (9.17 p.m.), both men enter the cell; M.T. immediately reaches for a chair and places it outside the cell; M.T., using what appears to be a small amount of downwards physical pressure on the applicant’s shoulders, sits the applicant down on the floor against the wall on the left; the applicant displays some resistance, in that he tries to sit up and then to stand up; the police officer maintains the applicant in a seated position using his hands; the applicant then stays down on the floor; M.T. leaves the cell; he puts the chair further down the corridor and closes the cell door. 47 .     When the timestamp reads 06:28, a female officer – presumably the female arresting officer, K.S. – walks in through the door on the right and approaches M.T. at the cell door. They both walk away. 48 .     At timestamp 06:40, the applicant lays down on the floor of the cell. He remains in that position from that point onwards. 49 .     K.S. stays in the corridor not far from the cell, looking at her mobile telephone and at some documents. At timestamp 08:37 of the footage, she is visibly alerted by the man in the cell. She goes over to the cell and takes a long look at the applicant through the bars. 50 .     At timestamp 08:58 (9.19 p.m.), M.T. joins K.S. They both walk up to the cell door and stand there for about ten seconds. Then they walk away. Throughout the recording, they are visible in the foreground, standing, walking about, talking and filling out paperwork. 51 .     At timestamp 09:40 (9.20 p.m.), M.T. walks to the cell door and stays there for one minute. It appears that he is looking at the applicant lying on the floor through the bars. 52 .     Throughout the rest of the video-footage, the arresting officers take turns to stay near the cell and occasionally look at the applicant through the barred door. Between timestamps 24:46 and 26:21 (9.35-9.37 p.m.), the applicant is left alone, with nobody in the visible vicinity. 53 .     The video also shows a number of police officers walking up and down the corridor, walking through the open door on the right and standing around, talking. None of them enters the cell. 54 .     At timestamp 27:15 (9.38 p.m.), a senior police officer approaches the two arresting officers and looks over what appears to be their report. He appears to be giving them instructions and the arresting officers continue writing the report, standing in the corridor near the cell. At timestamp 28:53, K.S. is seen making a photocopy of the paper. At timestamp 32:00 (9.42   p.m.), she is seen signing the papers and leaving for a moment with them. 55 .     At timestamp 35:40 (9.46 p.m.), K.S. kneels down in front of the cell and, possibly, talks to the applicant on the floor. She then continues filling out some paperwork and leaving and reappearing in the frame. 56 .     At timestamp 55:22 (10.06 p.m.), M.T. and another male police officer – presumably M.B. – walk into the cell. M.B. – visible from the side – leans over the applicant on the floor for approximately one minute. He appears to be manipulating something with his hands. M.T. is visible from the front, kneeling behind the applicant. At timestamp 55:52, K.S. walks over to the cell. She does not go inside. Her body covers part of the image of the cell. The officers inside the cell remain in clear view. Neither of them makes any fast, forceful or repetitive movements with their legs or any other parts of their bodies. At timestamp 56:26 (10.07 p.m.), the two officers get up and leave the cell. 57.     The arresting officers leave through the open door on the right. 58 .     M.B. stays in the vicinity of the cell, looking at the applicant on the floor through the bars. Another officer – presumably M.R. – joins him later. 59 .     At timestamp 01:04:40 (10.15 p.m.), M.B. and M.R. walk into the cell, pick the applicant up from the floor and walk with him through the open door on the right. 60 .     The files called 21100400 and 2110050 contain footage from two cameras positioned near the ceiling at opposite ends of another corridor – resumably the place behind the wooden door from the previous footage. At timestamp 05:40 (9.16 p.m.), both recordings show M.T. passing through with the applicant. The applicant is handcuffed behind his back. At timestamp 01:05:20 (10.16 p.m.), both recordings feature M.B. and M.R. walking with the applicant, whose hands are handcuffed behind his back. The applicant appears to be staggering slightly and saying something to one of the police officers. 61 .     The file called 21100300 contains a recording from the entrance of the police station. At timestamp 05:26 (9.16 p.m.), M.T. enters with the applicant. The applicant’s hands are handcuffed behind his back and he is stumbling badly. At timestamp 01:05:41 (10.16 p.m.), M.B. and M.R. take the applicant out of the police station. The applicant’s hands are handcuffed behind his back and he is staggering slightly. 62 .     The file called 212200400 contains a recording of the paved passageway leading to the entrance of the police station. At timestamp 05:15 (9.15 p.m.), M.T. walks out with the applicant, holding him from the side and leading him forward with one arm on the applicant’s back. The applicant is staggering slightly. At some point, near the door of the station, the camera captures the applicant’s head suddenly jerking forward slightly. The applicant then turns to the police officer and says something. At timestamp 01:05:50 (10.16 p.m.), M.B. and M.R. leave the station with the applicant. The applicant is staggering slightly. His arms are handcuffed behind his back. 63 .     The file called 21100200 contains a recording of the yard of the police station. At timestamp 05:08 (9.15 p.m.), the applicant gets out, by himself, from the police van. His hands are handcuffed behind his back and he is staggering slightly. M.T. guides the applicant with his arm to walk forward and takes him inside the station. On his top half, the applicant is wearing a shirt with a collar, a jumper and a winter jacket, which is zipped all the way up. For another minute, K.S. stays near the van. She then goes inside. At timestamp 01:05:57 (10.16 p.m.), M.B. and M.R. leave the station with the applicant. One of them is holding the applicant by his jacket at the back, at shoulder level. It is not possible to see how the applicant gets into the van. At timestamp 01:10:15 (10.20 p.m.), the van leaves the carpark. THE APPLICANT’S PLACEMENT AT THE SOBERING-UP CENTRE Submissions by the applicant 64.     The applicant had subsequently been taken to Zabrze sobering-up centre. Throughout the twenty-five-minute journey, he had been on the floor of the van with his hands still handcuffed behind his back, despite his requests to take them off. 65 .     Upon his admission to the sobering-up centre, he had been insulted and beaten by two staff members. He had received at least thirty blows to his face and chest. The police officer who had escorted the applicant to the sobering-up centre had witnessed the beating. The applicant had told the doctors who had subsequently examined him that the beating had been in revenge for his refusal to take a breathalyser test. When testifying to the police, the applicant had submitted that his refusal to take the breathalyser test had constituted his own revenge for the beating. 66.     Ultimately, the applicant had undressed and had been taken away. His multiple requests to call a doctor and to telephone his wife had gone unanswered. The applicant had been told to keep quiet otherwise the person with whom he had been sharing the room would hurt him. 67 .     The breathalyser test taken by the applicant the next morning at about 11   a.m. had been negative. A doctor had arrived when the applicant had already been dressed and waiting to be released. The applicant had left the sobering-up centre at about 11.30 a.m. 68 .     The Government submitted that the applicant had refused to be examined by the doctor on duty because, as he had said, the doctor, who was a foreigner, had not had a good command of Polish. Submissions by the officers of Czerwionka police station, M.R. and M.B. 69 .     One of the officers did not remember if the applicant had been examined by a doctor upon his arrival at the sobering-up centre. The other stated that he had not seen a doctor examine the applicant. 70 .     There had been no quarrel or commotion. The officers had not seen anyone at the sobering-up centre hitting the applicant. Submissions by the applicant’s fellow patient 71 .     A certain P.P. who had been admitted to the sobering-up centre immediately after the applicant testified that the applicant had told him that he had been beaten by police officers and members of staff of the sobering-up centre. Submissions by the employees of the sobering-up centre Guards 72 .     The two employees of the sobering-up centre who were present during the applicant’s admission testified that whenever a person was admitted, a breathalyser test was proposed and a doctor was present unless the person concerned refused to be examined. 73 .     The men denied that they had hit or insulted the applicant. One of the employees stated that the applicant had been aggressive, waving his arms and making threats. It had therefore been necessary to use a manual restraint measure for thirty   seconds. On-duty doctor 74 .     Doctor A.D., who was on duty at the sobering-up centre on 12   March 2014, testified that she did not remember the applicant. She also submitted that she was always present whenever a person was being admitted, and that she always asked whether the person concerned wished to be medically examined. Whenever she saw that the person concerned was unwell, she called for an ambulance and the person was then taken to the hospital for further examination. If the person refused to be examined, she would make a record of any visible injuries but would not touch the person and would not use a stethoscope. If the person refused to take a breathalyser test, the doctor would estimate the approximate level of intoxication by observing the person’s speech, movements and smell. A written entry in the sobering-up centre’s records would be made to this effect. The place where such examination took place was monitored via a camera. 75 .     The doctor also submitted that she had seen the video-recording of her attempt to examine the applicant. The image showed that she had put on her rubber gloves and had approached the applicant with a stethoscope. The applicant had made an abrupt movement and the doctor had become scared of him. The applicant had been held by the guards of the sobering-up centre. He had refused to be examined and to take the breathalyser test. 76 .     If the doctor remembered correctly, the applicant had not had any visible injuries and had not voiced any complaints. 77 .     She remembered that the applicant had been making threats. The doctor had not witnessed the applicant being beaten at the sobering-up centre. 78 .     The doctor had been present during the applicant’s admission for several minutes. 79 .     She had made an entry in the sobering-up centre’s records (see   paragraph   90 below) to the effect that the applicant had not wanted to say how much alcohol he had consumed and had not wanted to take the breathalyser test. His inebriation had been confirmed by his staggering, unintelligible talk and smell of alcohol. Moreover, the doctor described the applicant as vulgar, obstructive and uncooperative. Head of the sobering-up centre 80 .     The head of the sobering-up centre testified (see paragraph   111 below) that the whole centre, except for the so-called intimacy zone, were monitored by video-camera. The intimacy zone was where a patient undressed and had his or her medical examination. 81 .     The head of the sobering-up centre submitted that on 11 April 2014 the applicant had complained to him about his ill-treatment by the sobering ‑ up centre’s employees. Following this complaint, he had watched the video-recording of the applicant’s admission to the sobering-up centre (see paragraph 117 in fine below). The last time he had viewed the recording was in early May 2014. 82.     The head of the sobering-up centre had not saved the video ‑ recording and had not made paper copies of any of the frames in question. The disc of the monitoring system was overwritten every six weeks. Consequently, when the prosecutor had asked to have access to it on 22   May 2014, the video ‑ recording of 12 March 2014 had already been erased (see paragraph 117 below). 83 .     The recording had showed Doctor A.D. approaching the applicant twice, holding a stethoscope and a breathalyser in her hands. At that point, the applicant had been standing in the intimacy zone, that is to say, in the blind spot of the camera. 84 .     The recording had also showed one employee on duty suddenly rushing into the room, towards the applicant, and the doctor leaving the room soon afterwards. Another guard had already been present in the room. As the applicant had been standing in the intimacy zone, he and the two guards had not been visible on camera. 85 .     The head of the sobering-up centre had shown the video-recording to A.D., asking for explanations. A.D. had said that the material moment which had been partly captured by the camera was when the two guards had used a short manual restraint measure on the applicant. The measure had been in response to the applicant’s agitation. 86 .     The head of the sobering-up centre also testified in the investigation that the applicant had told him over the telephone that, on the morning of his release, he had not wished to be examined by the doctor on duty because of the latter’s poor command of Polish. Chief accountant of the sobering-up centre 87 .     The chief accountant, who had watched the video-recording in question, testified that she had seen Doctor A.D. and two employees approaching the applicant. Because of the intimacy zone, it had been impossible to know what had happened afterwards. Documents 88 .     The chart issued in respect of the applicant by Zabrze sobering-up centre (no. 701/14) contains the following relevant annotations that were made on 12 and 13 March 2014 by various persons involved in the applicant’s processing. 89.     On 12 March at 9.10 p.m. the applicant had been stopped by the police in 3 Maja Street. He had been inebriated and stumbling in the road. At 10.45   p.m. the applicant had been taken to the sobering-up centre (notes made by Officer M.R.) 90 .     At the centre, at 10.45 p.m., the applicant had undergone a medical examination. He had refused to take a breathalyser test. He had been obscene, resentful, vexatious, disobedient and he had threatened to beat up the staff. He had been staggering and his speech had been unintelligible. He had smelled of alcohol. No observations had been made in respect of the applicant’s pulse, heart rate, pupils, lungs, abdomen, visible injuries (such as bruises or wounds) because, as it was noted, he had refused to have a physical examination (notes made by Doctor A.D., see paragraph 79 above). 91 .     A restraining measure in the form of “holding [the applicant] down” had been employed for thirty seconds because the applicant had been clenching his fists, brandishing his arms and making threats; during the “holding down” and during the rest of his stay at the sobering-up centre, the applicant had been cursing, making threats and insulting the employees (notes by the head guard on duty ( kierownik zmiany ), M.B.). 92 .     On 13 March, twelve hours (in so far as legible) after his placement at the sobering-up centre, the applicant had been medically examined. He had been sober and his breathing and blood circulation had been good (notes made by Doctor D.B.). No observations were made regarding an examination of the applicant’s body for injuries. 93.     On 13 March at 11.30 a.m. the applicant was released. 94.     The chart has been signed in various places by Officer M.R. and Doctors A.D. and D.B., as well as by the head guard, M.B. 95 .     The field for the comments of the person being released is mostly empty. The following handwritten comment features there: “Due to lack of reading glasses” ( Z powodu braku okularów ). The applicant’s signature is next to this comment. THE APPLICANT’S INJURIES Submissions by the applicant 96 .     The applicant submitted that earlier on the day of his arrest he had hit his head against a tree, which had left a scratch on the right side of his forehead. 97 .     He also stated that his remaining injuries had resulted from ill ‑ treatment at the sobering-up centre (see paragraph 22 above). Submissions by the applicant’s son 98 .     The applicant’s son, who had collected the applicant from the sobering ‑ up centre on the morning of 13 March 2014, testified that he had seen bruises on the applicant’s face and redness on his chest. Documents 99 .     On 13 March 2014 a medical certificate was issued by a local physician who specialised in paediatrics and respiratory diseases and who was listed as a court-appointed expert. 100 .     The doctor stated that the applicant had the following injuries: abrasions and swelling covering an area of 5 by 5 cm on his forehead near the hairline; a black eye (right); swelling and bruising of the procerus ( nasada nosa ); redness and abrasions of the inner-corner of the left eye; swelling and aching in the area behind the left ear; aching of lower ribs on the left side with suspected cracked ribs; and redness and aching of the applicant’s chest in an area of 1 by 1.5 cm. 101 .     The certificate did not state how old the injuries appeared to be or how they could have been caused. 102 .     An X-ray of the applicant’s rib cage, which was taken on 19   March 2014, did not reveal any injuries. 103 .     A report drawn up on 15   October 2014 for the purpose of the investigation by an expert in forensic medicine contains the following conclusions about the applicant’s injuries. The abrasions on the applicant’s forehead had most likely resulted from the applicant’s fall during his walk in the forest earlier on 12   March. The injuries to his face, head and chest had resulted ( powstały ) from repeated blunt trauma, for example, punching. Because the applicant had submitted that being kicked in Czerwionka police station had not left any marks, the forensic expert did not elaborate on this (see paragraph 22 in fine above). The injuries described in the medical certificate of 13 March 2014 could have been caused ( mogły powstać ) in the circumstances described by the applicant. The injuries had resulted in the applicant being incapacitated for less than seven days. 104 .     The applicant submitted, without producing any medical proof to that end, that handcuffing his arms behind his back and pushing him into the van had caused him a lot of pain because he had undergone two surgeries to his backbone in the past and had chronic problems with his right shoulder. Since the incident his left thumb had been left completely numb. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND STAFF OF THE SOBERING-UP CENTRE 105 .     On 18 March 2014 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint at the police station in Czerwionka, stating that on 12 March 2014 he had been ill ‑ treated by police officers and the staff of the sobering-up centre. He submitted the above-mentioned medical certificate of 13 March 2014. 106.     On the same day, the applicant made a statement, presenting his version of the above-mentioned events. 107.     On an unspecified date, the case was registered with the Rybnik District Prosecutor. 108 .     On 4 April 2014 that authority relinquished the investigation and the case was registered with the Racibórz District Prosecutor. On 6   May 2014 a decision to open a criminal investigation was issued. 109 .     The allegations that were the subject of the investigation included: the unjustified use of coercive measures by police officers during the arrest, at the police station and at the sobering-up centre; failure to notify a relative about the applicant’s arrest; failure to perform a blood alcohol test; failure to have the applicant examined by a medical doctor at the police station and at the sobering-up centre. 110.     On 15 July 2014 a face-to-face confrontation which had been scheduled between the applicant and the arresting officers did not take place because of the absence of the officers in question. On 18 July 2014 a face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and Officers M.B. and M.R. did not take place for the same reason. 111 .     The following evidence was obtained for the purpose of the investigation: (i) the applicant’s criminal complaint and his subsequent testimony (obtained on 24 April 2014, see paragraph 105 above); (ii) the medical certificate of 13 March 2014 (see paragraph 99 above); (iii) the report of a forensic medicine expert ordered on 9 October and drawn up on 15   October 2014 (see paragraph 103 above); (iv) the witness testimony of the two police officers who arrested the applicant in the street, K.S. and M.T. (obtained on 8 and 22 May 2014 respectively; see paragraphs 11, 16, 23 and   29 above), of three officers from Czerwionka police station, two of whom (M.B. and M.R.) had contact with the applicant on 12 March (obtained on 27   May 2014; see paragraphs 36 and 69 above), and of six employees of the sobering-up centre, two of whom had contact with the applicant on 12 March (obtained in early and mid-June and in early July 2014 respectively; see   paragraphs 72 et seq. above); (v) the witness testimony of Doctor A.D. (obtained on 1 July 2014; see paragraphs 74 et seq. above); (vi) the witness testimony of the head of the sobering-up centre (obtained on 6   October 2014; see paragraphs 80 et seq. above) and its chief accountant (obtained on 14   October 2014; see paragraph 87 above); (vii) the witness testimony of the applicant’s son and a fellow patient at the sobering-up centre (obtained on 22   May and 23 October 2014 respectively; see paragraphs 98 and 71 above); and (viii) copi