CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11981/22 Franz ARNOLD against Switzerland lodged on 28 February 2022 communicated on 27 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns handcuffing of the applicant for four hours for an unpaid tax bill of 66 Swiss francs (approximately EUR 54 at the time). In September 2012, four police officers arrived at the applicant’s home at 7 a.m. with an order to bring him to the debt enforcement office due to an unpaid bill. The applicant, a gardener without criminal record, opened the door and was informed that he would need to go with the officers to the debt enforcement office. The applicant asked the officers whether he could re-park his van stationed in the courtyard and went to the vehicle and got inside. The officers, who were unaware that the amount of unpaid bill was just CHF   66, interpreted the applicant’s actions as an attempt to flee. After exiting the van as instructed, the applicant began gesticulating and hopped onto the vehicle’s loading bridge. Upon stepping down, the officers pressed the applicant onto the bonnet of a neighbour’s car and handcuffed his arms behind the back at 7.10 a.m. A number of the applicant’s neighbours witnessed the incident. The applicant fainted on the way to the police car. The officers called the ambulance which transported the unconscious handcuffed applicant accompanied by one of the officers to a hospital. Concerned that he might be a danger to himself or others, the emergency doctor ordered his admission to a psychiatric clinic for the night. The handcuffs were only removed at the clinic at 11.06 a.m. In August 2013, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the officers. The public prosecutor’s office refused to open proceedings in September 2013 and then in February 2014. Following an appeal by the applicant, in September 2015 the Schwyz Cantonal Court (the CC) overturned the last refusal to open criminal proceedings and referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office. In May 2016, the public prosecutor’s office again refused to open criminal proceedings. Following an appeal by the applicant, in February 2017 the Federal Supreme Court (the FSC) overturned that decision and referred the case back to the CC for a new decision, which in turn referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office in March 2017. In July 2019, the officers were charged with abuse of public office, false imprisonment, and abduction. In December 2019 the CC acquitted the officers, and dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeals, along with the FSC on 20 August 2021. The courts ruled that the police operation was lawful, referring to the applicant’s uncooperative and potentially threatening behaviour, which justified the officers’ belief that he could pose a risk to their safety. Additionally, the courts noted that the officers had no knowledge of the minor debt involved, and they had no discretion to disregard the order for the police summons. Therefore, the use of handcuffs was deemed neither malicious nor disproportionate. As for the extended handcuffing, the courts reasoned that there were suspicions the applicant had faked fainting and that it remained unclear whether he was still feigning weakness at the hospital, thus justifying their decision to keep him handcuffed for fear he might flee again. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of degrading and humiliating treatment, arguing that the police had arrested him unnecessarily, used force over a minor debt, humiliated him and kept him handcuffed for four hours. He also complained that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment was inefficient as that it had taken five years before the authorities initiated an investigation following the FSC’s ruling. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Shmorgunov and Others v.   Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, 21 January 2021 and Shlykov and   Others v. Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, 19 January 2021) ?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?