CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 2020

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 9 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10049/20 Artur SOKOLOVAS against Lithuania lodged on 14 February 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was arrested by the police for refusing to obey their orders. An electroshock weapon was used against him several times during the arrest. The domestic authorities opened a pre-trial investigation but it was eventually discontinued, finding that the actions of the police officers had been lawful. In particular, the final court decision stated that the applicant’s actions had not threatened the officers’ life; however, in view of the fact that the tense situation between him and the officers had lasted rather long, he had resisted them, had not allowed them to handcuff him and had become aggressive, there had been a risk that the officers’ health would become endangered. The court also held that even if there had not been sufficient grounds for the police to use the electroshock weapon, that would not have sufficed to incur criminal liability but only disciplinary liability. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police and that the investigation was ineffective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, at the hands of police officers (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015, and Znakovas v.   Lithuania [Committee], no. 32715/17, §§ 46-51, 19 November 2019)?   2.     Was the domestic authorities’ investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in line with the State’s procedural obligations under Article   3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 316-26, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Znakovas , cited above, §§ 57-61)?