Information Note on the Court’s case-law 43

June 2002

Berliński v. Poland - 27715/95 and 30209/96

Judgment 20.6.2002 [Section IV]

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Alleged ill-treatment on arrest and effectiveness of investigation: no violation

Article 6

Article 6-3-c

Free legal assistance

Delay in appointment of legal aid lawyer: violation

Facts : The applicants, two brothers, practise bodybuilding. The manager of an athletics club called the police after the applicant refused to leave. The applicants claim that they were beaten by several police officers, both on arrest and subsequently while lying handcuffed on the floor of the police van in which they were taken to the police station. An investigation into the alleged ill-treatment was discontinued due to lack of evidence, the prosecutor concluding that the police had been compelled to use force due to the applicants’ resistance. Proceedings were also brought agains t the applicants. Their request for a free defence lawyer remained unanswered. A lawyer was appointed a year later due to the court’s concern about their mental state. They were eventually convicted of resisting and assaulting police officers.

Law : Article 3 – The degree of bruising recorded in the medical reports indicates that the injuries were sufficiently serious to constitute ill-treatment. It was not disputed that the injuries had been caused by police officers or that force had been used at the club; however, it was not possible to establish if ill-treatment had been inflicted in the van. The police had had to react to unexpected developments and account had to be taken of the fact that the applicants were bodybuilders who resisted the legitimate acti ons of the police and were later convicted of assault. The applicants thus lacked a critical judgment of their own conduct when faced with a simple obligation to submit to the legitimate requirements of the police, an obligation which is part of general ci vil duties in a democratic society. These circumstances counted heavily against the applicants, with the result that the burden on the Government to prove that the use of force was not excessive was less stringent. The seriousness of the injuries did not o vershadow the fact that the recourse to physical force was made necessary by the applicants’ own conduct, and the use of force against them could not be regarded as excessive. Moreover, the investigation into their allegations was thorough and effective.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (c) – It was undisputed that the applicants lacked means to employ a lawyer for the criminal proceedings against them and that their request for an official lawyer to be appointed was ignored by the authorities, with the result that they had no defence lawyer for more than a year. Given that a number of procedural acts were carried out during that period, there was no justification for this restriction, which deprived the applicants of the right to adequately defend themselves during the investigation and trial.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Regist ry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes