CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 17 June 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29609/16 Attila Péter TARJÁNI against Hungary lodged on 23 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly excessive force used against the applicant by the police when called to intervene due to his drunken behaviour. During the police intervention and his short-term arrest the applicant suffered injuries necessitating his treatment in hospital. According to the medical certificate issued at the hospital, the applicant had bruises, scratches and a haematoma on his body, his left leg and some of his teeth were broken, although some of these injuries, including the broken leg, had occured before the incident. The criminal investigations initiated by the Orosháza District Chief Police Officer were discontinued by the Central Investigation Office on 17   December 2015 with the finding that it was impossible to establish which injuries had occurred during the police intervention, which ones previously or which were caused by the applicant himself. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on 18   February 2016. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about ill ‑ treatment by the police and the absence of an adequate investigation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?