CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 22 September 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 28956/20 Thomas GOULAS against Greece lodged on 12 June 2020 communicated on 4 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by an off-duty police officer, E.T. On 13 February 2013, the applicant was invited by E.T. to a meeting to settle a dispute and entered his car. The police officer then drove the applicant to a remote area, bit him on the nose and ear, handcuffed him, forcibly stripped him of all his clothes, threatened him with his service firearm and shot twice in the air for intimidation. Afterwards, he destroyed the applicant’s phone and abandoned him there. The police officer was prosecuted for these actions. The applicant’s further allegation that the officer raped him by inserting his fingers in his anus was considered unfounded and, in any case, not constituting rape by the criminal court of first instance. By final judgment no. 86-95/2019 of the Larisa Assize Court of Appeal, delivered on 2 April 2019, E.T. was found guilty of, inter alia , simple bodily harm, exposure to peril ( έκθεση ), and unlawful discharge of firearm. He was sentenced to twenty-seven months of suspended imprisonment. The applicant lodged an action for damages against Ε.Τ. before the civil courts relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the investigation into his alleged inhuman and degrading treatment by a State agent was ineffective, as the punishment imposed on the police officer was disproportionately lenient.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment by an off-duty police officer on 13 February 2013, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Was the police officer’s conduct imputable to the State (see, for instance, Kotelnikov v. Russia , no. 45104/05, § 93, 12 July 2016; Sašo Gorgiev v.   the   former   Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 49382/06, §§   48 ‑ 52, ECHR 2012 (extracts) ; and Đurđević v. Croatia , no. 52442/09, § 75, ECHR   2011 (extracts))?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection against inhuman or degrading treatment, have the domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment as required by Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, was there a manifest disproportion between the gravity of the acts committed against the applicant and the punishment imposed on E.T. considering the circumstances?   3.     The parties are requested to submit factual information relevant to the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings against the police officer E.T. and of the applicant’s civil action against him.