CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2017

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 January 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 3625/15 István TERGE against Hungary lodged on 9 January 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr István Terge, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1987 and is detained in Tiszalök. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 July 2012 at approximately 9 a.m. the applicant was transported from Budapest Prison to the premises of the Budapest Main Police Department for questioning. His questioning started at approximately 10 a.m. and lasted until approximately 11.30 a.m. The applicant submits that during the questioning he was ill-treated by a police officer, who demanded that he give a statement. On being released after the interrogation, the applicant was handed over to the guards of Budapest Prison who, in the presence of the police officer, asked him whether he had been ill-treated. The applicant declared that he had not been. Upon being transported back to Budapest Prison, the applicant underwent a medical examination before his readmission, during which certain injuries were noted on him. He was again transported to the Budapest Main Police Department, from where he was brought to the Military Hospital by the police officer conducting his interrogation. In the hospital he was examined in the presence of the police officer. The medical report described the applicant’s injuries as likely to heal within eight days. Following his return to Budapest Prison, the applicant was again subjected to a medical examination, during which he asserted that he had been ill-treated during his interrogation. A medical report of 20 July 2012 produced at Budapest Prison recorded the following injuries: swelling on the right cheek, head sensitive to pressing, abrasions on the chest, and a bruise on the lower lip. The Budapest Prison of its own motion initiated criminal proceedings on charges of forced interrogation. In the ensuing criminal investigations the Central Investigation Office questioned the applicant and a number of witnesses, including the guards who accompanied the applicant to the police department, and the medical staff and doctor on duty at Budapest Prison. The witnesses could not recall the events but stated that the applicant had not been monitored constantly throughout the period in question. The medical expert appointed by the Investigation Office expressed the opinion that it could not be confirmed that the applicant’s injury had been caused as alleged, and he might have caused it himself. The investigation was discontinued on 8 May 2014 on the grounds that the applicant’s allegations could not be substantiated in the absence of any witness testimony. This decision was upheld by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office on 15 July 2015. COMPLAINT The applicant alleges that he was ill-treated by the police during questioning, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 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?