CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 58 November 2003 Olszewski v. Poland (dec.) - 55264/00 Decision 13.11.2003 [Section IV] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Alleged ill-treatment by police and staff in a sobering-up centre: inadmissible The applicant had a domestic dispute with his wife and stepdaughter. Following a call from the stepdaughter to the police, some officers came to the house and informed the applicant he would be taken to a sobering-up centre. The applicant, who claims that he was not drunk at that moment, refused to follow the officers. He alleges that, in view of his resistance, he was kicked, insulted and dragged into the sobering-up centre. He claims that, once inside, he was put in a straightjacket, kicked in the testicles and that his scrotum was burnt. The Government dispute this version of events, and maintain that as the applicant was drunk and behaving aggressively, the officers had to employ physical force to restrain him. He was released from the sobering-up centre the next morning. Two days later, a doctor examined him, certifying that he had suffered skin abrasion, had loose front teeth and had a burn on his scrotum. The applicant subsequently requested the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers and employees of the centre for ill-treatment. The prosecutor took evidence from, inter alios , the applicant's family members, who maintained that the police were calm and had not assaulted the applicant. The investigation concluded that the behaviour of the police and staff of the centre had not constituted a criminal offence. The applicant's appeal to the District Court was dismissed. Inadmissible under Article 3 – Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused. However, in the case at hand, given that the medical certificate describing the applicant's injuries was prepared two days after his release from the sobering-up centre, there was no evidence that such injuries, in particular the burn on his scrotum, existed at the time of his release. As regards the applicant's skin abrasion, no material had been adduced which could call into question the domestic authorities' finding that this had resulted from the justified use of force by the police officers: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes