CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 avril 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   223 12.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DZWONKOWSKI v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dzwonkowski v. Poland (application no. 46702/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police; and, a violation of Article 3 concerning the absence of an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Dariusz Dzwonkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Marki (Poland).   On the night of 12 June 1997 he and three other men were standing outside an all-night shop in Marki. The Government submitted that the group had been disturbing public order, drinking vodka and destroying public property.   At around 1.a.m. on 13 June 1997 two police cars and four police officers arrived at the scene. They ordered everyone outside the shop to lie on the ground and then handcuffed them.   According to the applicant, while he was lying down, his hands handcuffed behind his back, the police officers, in particular police officer G.G., started to beat him on the head with their fists and to kick and insult him. According to the Polish Government, before the police managed to handcuff the applicant, he hit G.G. and insulted and threatened him.   The applicant was then taken in a police car to the Warsaw Sobering Up Centre (izba wytrzeźwień). He submitted that he was again beaten and insulted in the car; the Government stated that he was extremely aggressive, threatening and offensive.   In the Warsaw Sobering-up Centre the applicant underwent a breath test, which showed 1.92 ‰ of alcohol in his blood. Subsequently, he was taken to Bródno Hospital in Warsaw.   The applicant was examined by various doctors on 13 June who found, among other things, that he had a fractured nose, eye socket, jaw and left hand.   On 4 August 1997, a forensic medical expert found that the applicant’s injuries could have occurred as he alleged, but that it could not be excluded that they had occurred in the circumstances described by the police.   On 13 June 1997 the applicant made a request for criminal proceedings to be brought against G.G.. Proceedings were started but discontinued on 22 September 1997 with Wołomin District Prosecutor accepting the police statements that the applicant had fallen and hit his head against the kerb and that afterwards he had started hitting his head in fury against the pavement. The prosecutor considered the police statements to be “coinciding and complementary” and that there were discrepancies in the statements from witnesses who claimed the applicant had been beaten. The case was re-examined and the same decision was reached. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   The public prosecutor subsequently brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and, on 6 September 1999, he was convicted of assaulting two police officers and threatening and insulting four police officers.   However, on 22 December 1999 Warsaw Regional Court found that the trial court had “failed to assess diligently the evidence before it” and that the facts as established by it were open to doubt. It therefore quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the trial court.   On 17 June 2002 Wołomin District Court again found that the applicant had committed the offences in question. However, the court discontinued the criminal proceedings against him because it considered his actions were of “minimal social danger”. The court accepted as true that the applicant had been beaten by the police and also accepted part of the police officers' account in which they stated that the injuries had also occurred as a result of the applicant's actions. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 July 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints Relying on Articles 3 and 13, the applicant complained that he was ill-treated by the police during his arrest and that there was no adequate and effective investigation into his allegations.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the ill-treatment The Court observed that the applicant’s injuries were corroborated by several medical examinations carried out while he was still in police custody, and shortly afterwards, and were confirmed by the domestic authorities in both sets of subsequent criminal proceedings. It was also accepted that the applicant's injuries had occurred during his arrest by the police on 13 June 1997.   The Government submitted that the applicant's injuries were the result of his aggressive behaviour during a struggle with the police officers who had tried to apprehend him and that expert medical opinion could not categorically establish the origin of the injuries.   The Court firstly noted the contradictory conclusions in the two sets of domestic proceedings which concerned the assessment of the same events of 13 June 1997. In the proceedings concerning the applicant's allegations of ill treatment, the public prosecutors concluded that the injuries had been caused, as submitted by the police, by his falling on the ground and repeatedly hitting his head against the kerb. However, in the subsequent criminal proceedings against the applicant, the courts acknowledged that the applicant had been beaten by the police since his numerous injuries could not have been caused solely by his own actions. That constituted a sufficient factual and evidentiary basis for the Court to establish that the applicant had sustained his injuries, at least partly, as a result of being beaten by   police officers.   The Court considered that there was no evidence that the applicant had been particularly dangerous or that he had been in possession of a weapon and there was no evidence of any injury to the police officers involved. The Court further found that the Government had not furnished convincing or credible arguments which would provide a basis to explain or justify the degree of force used by the police. Accordingly, the force used by the police was excessive and unjustified in the circumstances. In addition, the use of such force had as a consequence injuries which undoubtedly caused serious suffering to the applicant of a nature amounting to inhuman treatment.   In the absence of any plausible explanation from the Government which would justify the degree of force used, the Court concluded that the applicant was subjected to inhuman treatment for which the Government had to bear responsibility and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 3.   Concerning the investigation Concerning the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the Court found it particularly unsatisfactory that the prosecutor was prepared to conclude that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by his hitting himself against a kerb, despite the medical evidence proving the extent of the injuries sustained by him and statements of witnesses who contradicted the police's version of events. The Court recalled that the domestic authorities in the subsequent trial against the applicant had considered those witnesses trustworthy in so far as they asserted that the applicant had been beaten by the police. The Court found that the prosecutor did not make any attempt to give a logical explanation as to how the applicant could have sustained multiple fractures without any use of force by the police. In addition, the prosecuting authorities unconditionally embraced the statements of the police officers without taking note of the fact that they had obviously had an interest in the outcome of the case and in diminishing their responsibility.   The Court concluded that the investigation was superficial, lacked objectivity and ended in decisions which contained conclusions unsupported by a careful analysis of the facts. Against that background, in view of the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant's arguable claim that he had been beaten by police officers, the Court found that there has been a further violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.