CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 21 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29048B37 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEBD403DC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { 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 } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE32676A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s539148BA { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#000000 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sDF837F39 { 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; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s77716D4A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s28BB4B37 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; 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 } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s67BA3037 { width:151.1pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sC0FD8C42 { width:119.62%; border-collapse:collapse } .s598C12D9 { width:6.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD4F4386A { width:32.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s906F76EF { width:22.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5D003661 { width:15.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD5330F5C { width:23.6%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD4EF5C17 { width:6.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD6C64CD5 { width:32.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s451EAF7A { width:22.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s31158F67 { width:15.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFF0BB873 { width:23.6%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } THIRD SECTION CASE OF PANAYOTOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE (Application no. 44758/20)   JUDGMENT Art 3 (procedural) • Ineffective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment of the three applicants, all of Roma ethnicity, by the police during their arrest, transfer to and detention at the police station • Art   14 (+ Art   3) • Authorities’ failure to take all possible steps to investigate whether discrimination might have played a role in the impugned events Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman treatment • Excessive force used by the police officers to overcome alleged resistance by the first and third applicants to their arrest • Art   14 (+ Art   3) • Discrimination • Not established that racist attitudes played a role in their ill-treatment Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Art   14 (+ Art   3) • Discrimination • Minor abrasions on the second applicant not sufficient to reach required Art   3 threshold • Absence of prima facie evidence capable of shifting the burden of proof on to the respondent Government • Given the lack of an effective investigation, Court unable to conclude whether the second applicant was subjected to ill-treatment   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 21 January 2025   FINAL   21/04/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Panayotopoulos and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   44758/20) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Greek nationals, whose names appear in the annexed list (“the applicants”), on 30   September 2020; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicants, three Greek nationals belonging to the Roma ethnic group, allege that they were subjected to acts of police brutality amounting to ill-treatment and/or torture during their arrest, transfer to and detention at the police station. They also complain that the relevant authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the incident and that the impugned events were motivated by racial prejudice. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born on the respective dates that appear in the appended table. They were represented by Greek Helsinki Monitor, a non-governmental organisation based in Glyka Nera, following the decision of the President of the Section on 18 March 2021 to grant the organisation leave to represent the applicant. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent and their Agent’s delegate, Ms N. Marioli and Ms A. Dimitrakopoulou, President and Senior Advisor respectively at the State Legal Council. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         OUTLINE OF EVENTS    The applicants’ version 5.     The applicants belong to the Roma ethnic group. 6 .     On 8 October 2016 they were passengers in a car which was being driven by a fourth individual. At a certain point, police started chasing them. The applicants asked the driver to stop the car, but he increased the speed; soon afterwards, the police car came into collision with their car. The driver and the three passengers fled the scene in order to avoid arrest and abandoned the car in Karolou Koun Street in Athens. The three applicants hid on a balcony of flat at 21 Karolou Koun Street. A neighbour who saw them alerted the police. The applicants lay on the ground in order to facilitate their arrest. However, the police officers (among them P.R., C.K. and E.G.) uttered racist insults and employed physical violence during the applicants’   arrest, during their transfer by police car to Ano Liosia police station and during their detention – causing them serious injuries. 7.     According to the applicants, the police officers employed violence in an unsuccessful effort to force them to confess to having committed criminal offences and in order to extract the name of the driver (who had run away). The first applicant (Mr Athanasios Panayotopoulos) was on 10 October 2016 transferred to the intensive care unit of Thriassio Hospital for ten days with a reported heart attack and wounds to his genitals (see the description of medical documents in paragraphs 11-14 below). 8 .     On 12 October 2016, Greek Helsinki Monitor, which was alerted to the incident, wrote a letter addressed to the Deputy Minister of Citizen Protection, the Secretary General for Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice, the Athens Public Prosecutor of the Court of First-Instance (henceforth: “the Public Prosecutor”), the Athens Court of First Instance and the Police Division on Racist Violence. The letter described the alleged ill-treatment, and stated that the applicants, at a meeting that they had had with the Public Prosecutor on 9   October 2016 had requested that they be referred to medical forensic examination – a request that had been refused because the Public Prosecutor had informed them that they should first lodge a criminal complaint and pay the relevant court fees before a forensic examination could be ordered. Greek Helsinki Monitor requested that its letter be considered to constitute a criminal complaint, that a forensic examination be ordered for the next day, that a lawyer be appointed to the applicants and that independent authorities carry out a preliminary criminal and administrative investigation. Following the receipt of the letter, a case file was opened. No forensic examination was ordered. 9 .     On 18 October 2016, Greek Helsinki Monitor, in a second letter that it addressed to the Athens Prosecutor of Racist Violence, requested that the latter take copies of defence statements given by the applicants on 13   October 2016 in the course of the criminal investigation against them, because in those statements they had described their injuries and had requested that those injuries be subjected to forensic examination. Greek Helsinki Monitor emphasised that – ten days after the events of the case – a forensic examination had still not been conducted and insisted that all three applicants should undergo a medical forensic examination as soon as possible. Hospital documents pertaining to the first applicant and photographs of the other two applicants taken on 13 October 2016 by their representative after they had given defence statements were attached to the letter. In conclusion, Greek Helsinki Monitor requested the prosecution of the police officers involved in what it described as torture that had been motivated by racism.    The Government’s version 10.     The Government disputed the applicants’ version of the facts and relied upon the conclusions of the national authorities that had investigated the facts, as described in paragraphs 15-37 and 40-57 below.       MEDICAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE FIRST APPLICANT 11 .     Following the admission of the first applicant to hospital on 10   October 2016, documents were drawn up describing his physical state. According to a note issued by the cardiology department of the hospital, upon the applicant’s release on 20 October 2016, the applicant had been admitted to the hospital complaining of heart pain caused by the above-described violence. He was diagnosed with atypical chest pain ( άτυπο θωρακικό άλγος ), and he was carrying signs of open rupturing trauma to the scrotum ( θλαστικό τραύμα στο όσχεο – that   is, external injuries of the soft tissues, characterised by the dissolution of the continuity of the skin). The heart echograph results depicted a non-expandable left ventricle with concentric wall hypertrophy and good overall systolic performance ( μη διατεταμένη ΑΚ με συγκεντρική υπερτροφία τοιχωμάτων και καλή συνολική συστολική απόδοση ). 12 .     The urologist of the hospital in a note dated 16 October 2016 reported: “The patient carries a wound with slight skin loss at the root of the scrotum, on the border with the perineal suture (left); a 10-centimetre-deep one-hole wound (probably from a pointed instrument – εκ νύσσοντος οργάνου ) emanates from the wound ...” 13.     The applicant’s hospital release documents stated that the applicant had been admitted on 10 October 2016 and had been released on 20   October 2016. The notes read: “Thoracic pain – [cause] undetermined; percutaneous coronary interventions, no acute myocardial infarction – no stent implant [inserted]; no co-existing conditions causing complications.” 14 .     Among the documents from the hospital contained in the case file, a document dated 12 October 2016 from the cardiology department addressed to Mandra police station stated: “The patient has been admitted to the cardiology department complaining of pain in the thorax and in the epigastrium. The examination has not yet been completed, [and] the patient cannot be released prior to the completion of the examination. Moreover, the said patient requests [that he undergo] a forensic [medical] examination [in the light of his] reported beating.”     CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANTS 15 .     The applicants were charged with various offences that they had allegedly committed in September and October 2016 – including for stealing the car in which they had been passengers on the night of their arrest and for resisting arrest that night. In the course of the investigation against the applicants, on 8 October 2016 the police officers P.R., C.K. and E.G. gave witness testimony describing how they had arrested the applicants. The first two officers were part of an OPKE ( Ομάδες Πρόληψης και Καταστολής Εγκληματικότητας ) team – that is to say a Team for the Prevention and Suppression of Crime; the third officer was part of an Immediate Action ( Άμεση Δράση ) team. According to them, the stolen car had been located on the corner of Fylis and Avloniti Streets, where its driver had executed a “U   turn” and then driven into the police car, after which the passengers had exited the car and run towards Karolou Koun Street. Then the police officers had started chasing the passengers on foot; they had heard a resident of a flat in 21 Karolou Koun Street calling for help and indicating that three people were on her balcony situated on the first floor (who proved to be the three applicants). The applicants had resisted arrest, and following a fight with the officers on the narrow balcony (during which the applicants had nearly thrown the officers off the balcony) the applicants had been arrested and driven to Ano Liosia police station. 16 .     On 13 October 2016 the three applicants gave their defence statements in respect of the offences of which they were accused; they all stated that they had been assaulted by the police, and the third applicant (Mr Vasilios Loukas) requested that a forensic medical examination of his injuries be carried out. The first applicant stated that even though he had not resisted arrest, he had been struck by the police officers on the neck, head, left and right leg, chest and stomach and in the genitals. The second applicant (Mr Ioannis Bekos) stated that although his injuries were not visible he was experiencing pain in the chin and bones. The third applicant mentioned that he had been beaten by the police officers, without specifying the injuries sustained thereby.    ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION    Initial preliminary administrative inquiry 17 .     On 18 October 2016 the Attica General Police Directorate ( Γενική Αστυνομική Διεύθυνση Αττικής ) ordered a preliminary administrative inquiry ( προκαταρκτική διοικητική εξέταση – Π.Δ.Ε. (“P.D.E.”)) following (i) the issuance of a report dated 13 October 2016 by the Attica Security Directorate and (ii) the lodging of a complaint dated 12 October 2016 by Greek Helsinki Monitor that contained allegations made by the applicants that the police officers had subjected them to torture both during and after their arrest. The Attica General Police Directorate’s order included a demand that the findings of the reports should contain fully reasoned assessments and conclusions regarding whether or not the police officers’   behaviour had been racially motivated. 18.     On 7 November 2016 leadership of the inquiry was assigned to Lieutenant G.B. of the Athens Airport Police Directorate, who was tasked with investigating the reported incidents (including whether they had been racially motivated) and with verifying whether disciplinary action should be taken against all police officers who had been involved in the case. 19.     In mid-December 2016, the three applicants were summoned to Aspropyrgos police station to give their testimony within the framework of the police administrative inquiry. According to the applicants, they refused to present themselves because the said police station was subordinate to the West Attica Police Division, where the accused police officers were serving. On 17 December 2016 a letter was sent to the Secretary General for Human Rights (attached to the Ministry of Justice) and the Greek Ombudsman (a copy was sent to Aspropyrgos police station). In it, the applicants’ representative complained that in the case of two of the three applicants the documents inviting them to testify were served on a relative with whom they did not live. He further complained that the Aspropyrgos police station was subordinate to the West Attica Police Division and that the administrative investigation therefore did not fulfil the condition of impartiality. 20 .     On 8 May 2017, G.B., the police officer in charge of the preliminary administrative inquiry, issued a report detailing the conclusions reached by the inquiry. In it, he described, inter alia , the witness testimony of the police officers. They all testified that upon their attempt to arrest the applicants on the balcony, they had almost fallen from it, as the applicants had pushed them. Moreover, officer P.R. had fallen onto the floor of the balcony, resulting in a light injury to his right hand. The gun case of officer E.G.’s had been damaged in the struggle. G.B. further described the defence statements given by the applicants in the course of the criminal proceedings against them. In that testimony, the applicants had requested that their injuries be subjected to a forensic examination (see paragraph 16 above). G.B. referred to the witness testimony given on 8 October 2016 by the resident of 21 Karolou Koun Street (on whose balcony of the applicants had been arrested), Ms D.D., who had mentioned that at the time that the applicants had been on the balcony, the police officers had repeatedly identified themselves as police officers, and had repeatedly demanded that the applicants comply with their orders. The latter had obviously not complied, and from the loud noises that had emanated from the balcony and given the balcony’s narrow surface area, it had been evident that a physical fight was taking place. 21 .     It was further mentioned by G.B. that the applicants had not appeared to give testimony within the context of the preliminary administrative inquiry, despite having been summoned.   Lieutenant G.B. made reference to the reports submitted to him by the three implicated officers dated 28   March 2017 in which the police officers had generally repeated the respective testimony that they had given within the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicants. In particular, officer E.G. had stated that the applicants had left the car on the corner of Fylis and Avloniti Streets and, after jumping off a bridge, had fled towards Karolou Koun Street. No such mention of a bridge had been made in the reports of the same date submitted by officers P.R. and C.K. Moreover, Lieutenant G.B. also mentioned reports submitted by two police officers, A.G. and N.K., who had been present at Ano Liosia police station. The latter had reported that they had not seen any visible injuries to the applicants, and nor had the applicants mentioned anything relevant. Lastly, G.B. referred to the above-mentioned hospital documents concerning the first applicant. 22 .     On the basis of the above-noted elements, Lieutenant G.B. concluded that what the applicants alleged had not been verified; on the contrary – it was clear that the police officers had come under heavy attack from the applicants (who had resisted arrest), and the police officers had used the absolute minimum force necessary to lawfully defend themselves. The injuries sustained by the applicants – which in any event had not been visible to the police officers at Ano Liosia police station (who had reported that they had not seen any) – could have been caused by the car crash that they had deliberately caused in order to flee arrest and by their jumping off a bridge after they had abandoned the car. Lieutenant G.B. recommended that the administrative inquiry be suspended pursuant to Article 48 § 3 of Presidential Decree no.   120/2008 for a period of less than a year (in the light of the parallel criminal proceedings) so that any evidence adduced by the latter could be taken into account by the administrative inquiry. The next day the director of the Athens Airport Police Directorate indicated his concurrence with that opinion. 23.     On 21 August 2017 the head of the Attica General Police Directorate decided to archive the officers’ disciplinary file. By a document dated 22   August 2017, the Attica General Police Directorate informed to this effect the Western Attica Police Directorate, the Police Personnel Directorate and the Internal Affairs Directorate.    Supplementary preliminary administrative inquiry 24.     On 20 April 2018, in the light of newly identified elements that had not been properly investigated, the Attica General Police Directorate revoked the decision to consign the case file to the archives and ordered that the preliminary administrative inquiry be reopened and completed, pursuant to Article 31 §   5 of Presidential Decree no. 120/2008. 25 .     G.B. completed the reopened preliminary administrative inquiry, and in the report on his findings dated 10 August 2018 he clarified that – contrary to the applicants’ representative’s allegations that the applicants had been summoned by Aspropyrgos police station (which was subordinate to the West Attica Police Division) – the administrative investigation had been conducted by a police unit that was not administratively subordinate to the police officers investigated. The applicants had been requested to reply to specific questions that he (G.B.) had asked, so they had not had to reply to questions posed by officers from Apropyrgos police station. In any event, the second and third applicants had in the end been invited to testify at, respectively, Aitoliko police station and Korinthos police station (they being residents of those areas). As regards the applicants’ complaints that summonses to testify had not been served on them, G.B. referred to the receipts for the summonses that had been served on the second and third applicants, who had taken delivery of them themselves. He further noted that as regards the first applicant the relevant invitation had been served on his sister and had then been posted on his front door, as he had not been found in the house –   pursuant to the relevant legislation. Lieutenant G.B. again recommended that the disciplinary proceedings be suspended – an opinion with which the Director of the Athens Airport Police Directorate concurred.    Sworn administrative inquiry 26 .     By a decision of 10 May 2019, the Attica General Police Directorate upgraded the preliminary administrative inquiry to the status of sworn administrative inquiry ( ένορκη διοικητική εξέταση – Ε.Δ.Ε .). The decision provided that the officer that headed the sworn administrative inquiry was obliged to examine, inter alia , any racial motive for the actions of the implicated police officers and record in his findings report fully reasoned assessments and conclusions in that regard. 27.     On 24 May 2019 the sworn administrative inquiry was assigned to Lieutenant Colonel M.T. of the administrative enquiries subdivision at the Attica General Police Directorate, who conducted the inquiry and took the testimony of witnesses, defendants and the applicants. 28.     On 7 June 2019 the Greek Ombudsman, an independent authority acting in its capacity as the National Mechanism for the Investigation of Arbitrary Incidents ( Εθνικός Μηχανισμός Διερεύνησης Περιστατικών Αυθαιρεσίας ), was notified of the opening of the sworn administrative inquiry. 29 .     On 18 December 2019 Lieutenant Colonel M.T. presented her findings concerning the sworn administrative inquiry. She concluded that the three applicants had been lawfully summoned during the preliminary administrative inquiry. Moreover, she noted that the respective testimony given to her by the three applicants contradicted the testimony that they had given in 2017 in respect of whether they had been assaulted both during their transfer to the police station and at the police station. If the applicants had been beaten as intensely as they alleged, they would have had visible injuries to their faces; however, judging by the photographs taken of them either at the police station a few hours after they got arrested or later by their representative, only the third applicant had had some bruising under his eyes. In any event, even assuming that the applicants had requested that they be subjected to a forensic examination (they had not referred to any such request in the testimony that they had given to the investigating judge; such a request was only referred to in a document from the hospital which noted that the first applicant had asked to be examined – see paragraph 14 above), the applicants could have appointed a forensic medical expert themselves in order that their injuries be recorded. In the light of the above-mentioned observations – and given the fact that no criminal charges had been brought against the police officers because the Prosecutor had proposed that charges not be brought against them M.T. concluded that there was no credible evidence that the police officers had (prompted by a racist motive) ill-treated the applicants. She therefore recommended that the case be archived in respect of the three police officers (P.R., C. K. and E.G.), and that the services to which they were attached be instructed to monitor the progress of the criminal investigation into the case. The director of the administrative enquiries subdivision concurred with that recommendation. 30.     On 7 January 2020 the applicants’ representative asked the Ombudsman whether the sworn administrative inquiry had been completed and requested copies of the relevant documents in order to be able to lodge an application with the Court. In reply, on 27 January 2020, the Ombudsman stated that the inquiry had not been completed and that the applicants could receive copies only after its completion and under the conditions set out by the relevant legal provisions. 31.     Following the completion of the sworn administrative inquiry, the file was forwarded on 21 February 2020 to the Ombudsman so that the latter could decide whether it was necessary to reopen that inquiry in order that it be supplemented. 32 .     The Ombudsman in a findings report dated 14 October 2020 raised certain points regarding the sworn administrative inquiry. In particular, he noted that the inquiry had been sufficiently independent, as it had been assigned to an officer who had belonged to another police directorate – even though the relevant legislation at the time had not provided for it. The means of summoning the applicants had been sufficiently explained by the investigating officers. One problematic issue identified in the report was the relationship between the preliminary criminal investigation and the disciplinary inquiry. Specifically, the persons conducting the criminal investigation were awaiting the results and conclusions reached by the disciplinary investigation (and vice versa ), and the preliminary administrative inquiry had twice been suspended pending the conclusion of the criminal investigation and the publication of the findings thereof. Thus, the independence and autonomy of the two respective procedures had not been guaranteed; indeed, each had been fully dependent on the other – especially at the initial preliminary inquiry stage. Moreover, in concluding that no disciplinary offence had been conducted, the sworn administrative inquiry had taken into account the fact that criminal charges had not been brought against the officers. However, at the time of completion of the sworn administrative inquiry, criminal charges had been brought against the police officers and a main investigation had been conducted, at the end of which (i)   the Prosecutor had proposed that no court proceedings be opened, and (ii)   the relevant decision of the Athens Board of Misdemeanour Judges as to whether court proceedings would be opened had still been pending. Another issue identified by the Ombudsman was the conclusions of the sworn administrative inquiry, according to which it was not certain that the applicants had in fact requested that they undergo a forensic medical examination. However, in the testimony that they had given to the investigating judge on 13 October 2016 all three had stated that they had been assaulted, and the third applicant had requested a forensic medical examination. The Ombudsman further noted, citing the Court’s relevant case-law, that such cases required an ex officio investigation. The Ombudsman stated that the instant case had not required that a criminal complaint be lodged by the applicants, and criticised the lack of any forensic medical examination. As regards the violence against the applicants, the sworn administrative inquiry had assessed only the applicants’ respective testimony, which it had found to be inaccurate as regards the location at which they had been assaulted. The inquiry had not assessed evidence attesting to the existence of any injuries at all (or the reasons for any such injuries); nor had it determined any specific explanation for the visible injuries to the third applicant, as depicted in the above-mentioned photographs, and nor had it uncovered any evidence that those injuries had been the result of necessary force exercised by the police officers. On the contrary: the report had simply stated – without providing any reasoning – that the injuries had been a result of necessary violence. As regards the bruises on the third applicant specifically – those had been corroborated by (i) his testimony of 23   June 2017 to the effect that during the arrest (when, as was not disputed by anyone, violence had been exercised by the police officers), one police officer had kicked him in his left eye, which had become bruised, and (ii) the above-mentioned photographs, which depicted injuries that could not have reasonably been the result of jumping off a bridge which could have resulted in injuries to the body or the head, but not the eye. His bruises had also been visible when he had been brought to Peristeri police station after his arrest, as reported in the station’s incident log. As regards the injuries to the genitals of the first applicant (as described in the hospital documents), the sworn administrative inquiry had not determined any plausible explanation, given that such injuries were unlikely to have been caused by jumping off a bridge or during the arrest. Moreover, there had been no assessment of the medical findings reached and assessments undertaken by the hospital, while the initial preliminary administrative inquiry had merely referred to them without forming any judgment. In addition, the doctor who had certified the first applicant’s injuries could have been (but was not) summoned to testify in respect of their possible cause. The Ombudsman further noted that it had not been possible during the sworn administrative inquiry to identify which of the police officers had transferred the applicants to the police stations, given the latter’s allegations that they had been beaten up during that transfer. Nevertheless, according to the OPKE logbook entries for 8-9   October   2016 which had been submitted on 5 September 2017 and which were included in the criminal file, it was clear that it had been officers of that team who had transferred the applicants. However, the content of the “same” document that had been adduced during the sworn administrative inquiry had been different. Therefore, it should be investigated which of the two documents was the original and how an altered document had been introduced into the inquiry. In the light of all the above-noted omissions, the Ombudsman stated that the sworn administrative inquiry should be reopened and supplemented.    Supplementary sworn administrative inquiry 33 .     On 5 December 2020 the Attica General Police Directorate ordered the opening of a supplementary sworn administrative inquiry, which was assigned to Lieutenant Colonel A.L. of the administrative enquiries subdivision at the Attica General Police Directorate. In her findings (dated 22   March 2021), A.L. reiterated the findings of the initial sworn administrative inquiry, and referred to the fact that the criminal investigation had been wound up pursuant to the below-mentioned Order no.   4953/2019, concluding that – given that no criminal charges were pending against the officers and that the accusations made against them by the Roma applicants were completely false – the remarks made by the Ombudsman did not require any further investigation. A.L. recommended that the case be archived, and on 2   April 2021 the director of her Department indicated his concurrence with that recommendation. 34.     By a report issued on 3 April 2021 by the administrative enquiries subdivision of the Attica General Police Directorate, the case file was sent to the Uniformed Personnel Department of the Directorate for review. The file was subsequently sent to the Ombudsman on 11   June 2021 so that he could decide whether the inquiry had been sufficiently thorough or whether it needed to be supplemented. 35 .     On 12 August 2021 the Ombudsman submitted a report. In it, he stated that during the supplementary sworn administrative inquiry the only new action taken by way of supplementing the inquiry had been simply to refer to the conclusions of Order no. 4953/2019. In his initial report, the Ombudsman had made extensive references to Article 48 of Presidential Decree   120/2008 (which concerned the need to keep the disciplinary investigation independent of the criminal investigation) and to the relevant case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court. According to that case-law, (i) disciplinary organs were bound by a final acquittal only as regards the existence or non-existence of the facts that constituted the disciplinary offence in question, but (ii)   as regards the remainder of the matters in question, they were free to issue a different decision after taking into account the findings of the criminal decision. The Ombudsman noted that in the instant case, the investigating organs had not undertaken a free assessment of the evidence before them but had rather adhered strictly to what had been accepted in the criminal proceedings. While this had been a possibility available to them, the choice of the administrative organs not to investigate and assess the evidence had constituted a disregard for the independence and the aim of the disciplinary procedure. The Ombudsman, after noting that the criminal and disciplinary proceedings in the instant case had not been independent and autonomous, referred to all the omissions identified in his first report – namely, (i)   the failure to order a forensic medical examination of the injuries sustained by the first and third applicants, and (ii) the failure to take into account the relevant photographs and hospital documents, and the OPKE logbook entries (which all formed part of the criminal investigation file). The Ombudsman concluded that there was no margin for further completion of the sworn administrative inquiry. 36.     Subsequently, the Attica General Police Director, by a decision of 8   September 2021, concluded that the case should be archived and that no disciplinary action should be taken against the three police officers involved or against any other police officer, because no disciplinary responsibility had been established for any racially motivated torture and violence. 37 .     On the basis of the above, on 8 September 2021 the Director of the Attica General Police Directorate concluded that police officers P.R., C.K. and E.G. had not committed any disciplinary offence, and that nor had any disciplinary responsibility been established in respect of any other police officers.     Separate Administrative proceedings 38 .     As noted by the Ombudsman (see paragraph 32 above), the version of the above-mentioned OPKE logbook of 8-9 October 2016 that was submitted on 5 September 2017 within the context of the criminal preliminary investigation was different in its wording from the version of the same document that was submitted on 27   September 2019 to the officer who conducted the sworn administrative inquiry. On 8 September 2021 a separate administrative inquiry was initiated in order to discern whether a non-faithful reproduction of the said document had been submitted intentionally and to identify if the persons involved bore disciplinary responsibilities therefor. On 24   December 2021, a report on the findings of the separate inquiry was issued. The report stated that the 2019 copy of the document was not analytical, but rather referred to an attached testimony. By contrast, the 2017 copy was analytical, detailing numerous elements concerning the incident. According to the testimony given by the officers within the context of the separate administrative proceedings, the officers patrolling on the night in question, for lack of time, had initially been more succinct in their description of the incident; however, just after they had submitted their incident report, they were asked to expand upon it by the service to which they were attached – and they did so. That was further proved by the fact that the logbook entries for 8-9 October 2016 had been submitted in 2017, which meant that it had not been altered afterwards. By mistake, the more succinct version had been submitted to the sworn administrative inquiry in 2019. The person conducting the separate administrative proceedings proposed that the case to be archived – an opinion with which the Police Director indicated his concurrence on 19   January 2022. 39 .     On 30 June 2022 the applicant’s representative lodged a criminal complaint (alleging a breach of duty and abuse of power) against several persons, including the investigating judge, the prosecutor and police officers. The complaint was based on the facts of the present case and the OPKE logbook entries that had been submitted in two different versions during the investigation.      CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 40 .     On 10 January 2017 the Athens Public Prosecutor at the Court of First Instance ordered that a preliminary investigation be conducted by the Internal Affairs Division of the police in order to verify whether police officers had caused dangerous bodily harm to the applicants jointly and repeatedly. There was no mention of racist motive nor of torture (criminal file no.   PR   2016/4). 41.     Following a three-month extension requested by the Internal Affairs Division and granted by the Public Prosecutor, the applicants were called to testify on 11 April, 21 May and 23 June 2017 respectively. In their respective testimony, they described in detail the ill-treatment that they had allegedly suffered while being arrested on the above-mentioned balcony, in the police station and during the transfer to the General Police Directorate. 42 .     In particular, the first applicant (in his testimony of 11   April   2017) stated that in the front of the building on which the balcony stood there had been many police officers, some of whom had gone onto the balcony. They had started assaulting him and the other applicants with kicks and punches to the stomach, the neck, the legs, the face and the whole body. The kicks had been very painful as the police officers had been wearing army boots. He could not remember how long the assault had lasted; he had been only half-   conscious after the beating and had vomited blood. Then someone had grabbed him by the hair and had dragged him and the others down the stairs. Then they had taken them to Ano Liosia police station. The same police officers had kicked and punched them in the police station, too, while wearing the special gloves worn by police officers. Other police officers had participated too but he could not say how many, as he had had his head down. From the police station, they had transferred him elsewhere – probably to the Attica General Police Directorate. During the transfer there the police officer sitting with him in the police car had struck him too. The applicants had slept there, and had not been assaulted. The next day they had been taken to be questioned by the investigating judge. While before the investigating judge he had requested to be allowed to go to the toilet where he had noticed that his genitals had a tear from which he was bleeding. The applicants had then been taken to different police stations. The first applicant had asked to be taken to hospital. He had requested both the investigating judge and the hospital staff that he be examined by a forensic expert; however, no such examination had taken place. He was not capable of identifying the police officers who had assaulted him as he had tried to keep his head down in order to protect himself. He no longer wished to see a forensic expert because –   given the amount of time that had elapsed since the events in question –   such an examination would be pointless. 43 .     In his testimony of 21 May 2017, the second applicant stated that he had fled the scene with the other applicants; they had jumped off a fence and had found shelter on a balcony. There, three or four police officers had arrested and handcuffed them and then they had started kicking and punching them all over their bodies as they had been lying on the ground, without