CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10788/19 Oleg PULATOV against Estonia lodged on 20 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns use of excessive force against the applicant in the course of his arrest. According to the applicant, when he was arrested from behind the wheel of his car, a police officer punched him twice in the face with his fist. As a result of that he sustained an injury in the form of a non-displaced double fracture of anterior wall of maxillary sinus with oedema as well as subcutaneous and maxillary sinus hematomas. The ensuing criminal investigation concluded that the police officer had used disorienting slaps, a lawful technique which consisted of slapping the applicant in the face with fingers so that he would lift his hands to the face and the police could gain control of his hands for handcuffing. In the course of that the police officer could have accidentally hit the applicant with the lower part of his palm. The criminal investigation against the police officer was terminated without sending the case to a court. The applicant’s complaints against the termination of the proceedings were dismissed. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the excessive force used in the course of his arrest and about lack of an effective investigation in this respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the police treat the applicant in the course of his arrest in a manner which is incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§   81-90 and   100 ‑ 108, ECHR 2015; Minikayev v. Russia , no. 630/08, 5 January 2016; Gedrimas v. Lithuania , no. 21048/12, 12 July 2016, and Mihhailov v.   Estonia , no. 64418/10, 30 August 2016)? Among other aspects, was the recourse to physical force during the arrest made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct (Did the police have a reason to believe the applicant would show resistance? If yes, what evidence supports that? Did the applicant fail to comply with the police officers’ request to peacefully surrender to his arrest? Did the applicant show resistance to the police officers arresting him? If yes, what evidence exists in that respect?)? Could the applicant’s injuries have resulted from a proportionate use of force by the police officers?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection against inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Among other aspects, was it opened promptly, were measures taken to avoid collusion between the suspect and other police officers implicated in the event, was the investigation thorough, were all necessary investigative steps taken (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-123, ECHR 2015, Mihhailov v. Estonia , no. 64418/10, §§ 106-109, 30 August 2016)?