CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 July 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34039/22 Rifka Barbara HOFMAN against the Netherlands lodged on 8 July 2022 communicated on 14 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an incident that occurred on 30 September 2018 when two police officers responded to a noise complaint concerning a house party. The applicant was one of the residents of the house and when she was asked for her ID, the situation escalated. The police officers used force against the applicant when they removed her from the house, at this moment the   applicant was not under arrest. The complaint filed by the applicant against the police officers was dismissed and the applicant’s subsequent complaint against the public prosecutor’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings on charges of aggravated assault was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 11 January 2022. The applicant herself was prosecuted for simple assault of a police officer, of which she was discharged and for resisting an official engaged in his lawful duties for which she was acquitted. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention, that the force used against her was disproportionate and not absolutely necessary. The   applicant also complains that the investigation fell short of the adequateness and effectiveness required under the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in   breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the force used in respect of the applicant in order to check her identity strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case (see Dembele v. Switzerland , no.   74010/11, § 41, 24 September 2013, and Bouyid v.   Belgium   [GC], no.   23380/09, §§   88 and   100, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, did the investigation in the present case comply with the requirements under Article 3 of the   Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23)?