FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 49284/10 Andrzej PRĄDZYŃSKI against Poland lodged on 20 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrzej Prądzyński , is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Warsaw .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A. The events of 8 August 2009

On 8 August 2009 at 10 p.m. the applicant was returning home from a party. He was stopped by the police. The applicant was under the influence of alcohol but there is no appearance that he was aggressive or disturbing public order. The police found on him 0.4 grams of a substance which later was confirmed to be marijuana.

At the police station the applicant was insulted by two police officers. After he had signed a record of arrest ( protokół zatrzymania ) the police officers beat him up. The applicant was hit on his head and face. He was also kicked on his leg, back and chest. The police officers refused to call his girlfriend and to inform her about the applicant ’ s arrest. The applicant was tested positive for alcohol (0.9 mg/l in breath).

Afterwards the police transported the applicant to the Warsaw Sobering ‑ up Centre. Upon his arrival the applicant saw a doctor but the latter did not examine him in detail. It was noted however that the applicant had bruises on his jaw and back. The applicant complained about pain in his chest and legs and received painkillers.

The next morning, on 9 August 2009 at 10 a.m., the applicant was transported back to the police station. He was heard by a police officer who threatened him in order to find out from whom he had bought the drugs. The applicant signed the record of the arrest stating that he was healthy and he would not appeal against the arrest. The applicant submits that he made such statements out of fear of being beaten up again. At 1 p.m. he was released.

B. The medical evidence

On 11 August 2009, a Tuesday, the applicant was examined by a radiologist who established a fracture of one rib on his right side. It appears that the applicant went to the doctor on 10 August 2009 but obtained an appointment only for the following day. He received the results of the x ‑ ray on 14 August 2009.

On 14 August 2009 the applicant was examined by a dentist who found that some of his teeth had been chipped.

On 17 August 2009 the applicant was examined by two other doctors who confirmed the fracture of the rib, haematomas on the right side of his back and on the leg as well as pain of the side of his skull.

In November 2009 an expert from the Forensic Institute at the Warsaw Medical University prepared her opinion for the prosecutor. The expert concluded that the injuries sustained by the applicant could have happened in the circumstances explained by him. However, it could not be excluded that they happened in the circumstances described by the police officers “who transported an aggressive and drunk person who, trying to escape, hit his side and leg against the door of the police car. While hitting his head and face against the window of the car he could have sustained the bruises on the forehead and face.”

C. The investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations

On 17 August 2009 the applicant informed the prosecutor about the events at the police station and asked him to initiate an investigation into his ill ‑ treatment by the police.

On 17 November 2009 the prosecutor decided to have an expert medical opinion prepared concerning the applicant ’ s injuries and their possible origin.

On 30 November 2009 the Warsaw District Prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation finding that the police officers had not overstepped their powers. The police officers stated to the prosecutor that during the arrest and at the police station the applicant had been aggressive and vulgar. They submitted that during his transport to the sobering ‑ up centre the applicant started hitting his head and shoulder against the door of the car in which he had been transported. The prosecutor referred to the expert medical opinion which had not excluded that the applicant ’ s injuries happened in the circumstances described by him. The prosecutor also quoted the forensic opinion in the part which had not excluded that his injuries happened in the circumstances described by the police officers, in particular, since the applicant had been drunk and had been hitting the door of the car with his body in order to escape. The prosecutor further referred to the fact that the applicant had not complained to the staff of the sobering ‑ up centre about being beaten up by the police and had signed the record of arrest denying any heath problems.

The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. He complained that the record of arrest had contained no information about his alleged aggressiveness towards the police officers. The first mention of it was made in a note prepared by one of the intervening officers on 31 August 2009, after he had lodged his complaint with the prosecutor. Moreover, the prosecutor failed to notice inconsistencies in the statements of the police officers as regards the type of the car used to transport him. He also argued that he had complained about being beaten up, orally, to the police officers who had searched his apartment and at the police station. He failed to put it in writing on the record of arrest out of fear of being beaten up again.

On 23 February 2010 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The court considered that the prosecutor ’ s assessment of facts had been correct. As confirmed by the forensic expert, there were two possible but contradictory versions of events, one submitted by the applicant and the second by the police officers. It was also of importance for the assessment of the case that the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol and in possession of drugs. The court concluded that there had been no evidence proving beyond doubt that the version of events presented by the applicant should have been retained.

D. Other proceedings

On 14 August 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against his arrest of 9 August 2009 and the manner in which it was carried out. On 8 December 2009 the Warsaw District Court dismissed it. It found that the applicant was stopped on the street because of his intoxication and drugs were found on him. That constituted a sufficient basis for his arrest.

On 24 February 2010 the Warsaw District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for possession of 0.38 grams of marijuana finding that it must had been for his personal use.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill ‑ treated by the police and that the investigation into his allegation was not thorough and effective. He submits that he was in a vulnerable position, in the hands of the police. The force used by them was excessive and breached the Convention. The applicant underlines that he signed the record of arrest out of fear of being beaten up again. He complains that the prosecutor unconditionally accepted the police officers ’ version of events without giving a plausible explanation as to the origin of his multiple injuries, in particular a broken rib.

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?