CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 2024

.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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 April 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57967/22 Danis ZIGMANTAVIČIUS against Lithuania lodged on 2 December 2022 communicated on 10 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant, inflicted by a police officer with an electroshock weapon, and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into his complaints of ill-treatment. On 8 April 2022, at around 10 p.m., the Jonava police was notified by the applicant’s neighbour that noise, possibly consistent with domestic violence, was coming from the applicant’s flat. Two police officers arrived at the scene. The applicant opened the door, began yelling at the officers, tried to kick and punch them, and locked himself in the flat. Two more officers were called. The applicant left his flat and started approaching the officers in the staircase of the building. One of them used an electroshock weapon against him. The applicant fell down and hit his head on the stairs. The police handcuffed him and called an ambulance, which took him to the hospital. It was later established that at the time of the events at issue the applicant had been drunk. As a result of hitting his head on the stairs, he sustained a cerebral contusion, traumatic haemorrhage and a skull fracture. The applicant’s mother asked the domestic authorities to open a pre-trial investigation into his alleged ill-treatment by the police. The authorities refused, stating that there were no grounds to believe that the police officer had acted unlawfully when using the electroshock weapon. Having examined the official reports submitted by the police officers and the video recordings made with their body cameras, the authorities found that the applicant had acted aggressively towards the officers and had tried to physically attack them. Moreover, the staircase had been dark and the officers could not have excluded that he may have had a weapon. The officers had had to react quickly and had not had the time to warn the applicant about the possible use of the electroshock weapon because their own life or limb might have become endangered. Thus, the officers had not exceeded their remit and the use of the electroshock weapon had been provoked by the applicant’s own unlawful actions. Lastly, the police officers had not sought to injure him, but his injuries had been sustained by accident, when he had hit his head while being drunk and falling down the stairs. The final domestic decision was taken by the Kaunas Regional Court on 3 August 2022. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into the matter was not effective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of police officers (see Bouyid v. Belgium   [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015; see also Znakovas v.   Lithuania   [Committee], no. 32715/17, §§ 33 and 46-51, 19   November 2019, and Sokolovas v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 10049/20, §§ 17-22, 28   June 2022)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the domestic authorities’ investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in line with the State’s procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania   [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 316-26, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Znakovas , §§ 55-61, and Sokolovas , §§ 23-26, both cited above)?   The parties are asked to provide the Court with any available video recordings of the events at issue.