Published on 25 September 2023

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 14355/22 Darius ZABITA against Lithuania lodged on 7 March 2022 communicated on 6 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns alleged ill-treatment by the police during a traffic stop and the effectiveness of the ensuing investigation.

On 17 February 2020, at around 3.20 a.m., the car driven by the applicant was stopped by the police in the area close to the Lithuanian-Polish border. According to the applicant, police officers dragged him out of the car for no reason, threw him onto the ground, bent his arms behind his back and handcuffed him. A medical examination showed that he had sustained scrapes on his face and right knee, bruises on his right eyelid and right wrist and a contusion of his right elbow which had caused a rupturing of the elbow ligaments. Those injuries had required treatment lasting for more than ten days and were thus classified as a minor health impairment ( nesunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas ).

The applicant asked the relevant authorities to open a pre-trial investigation against the police officers. On several occasions the authorities refused to open an investigation but their decisions were quashed by higher authorities or by the courts. In particular, in a decision of 7 July 2020, in which it allowed the applicant’s complaint against a decision to refuse to open an investigation, the Kaunas Regional Court noted that in their official reports submitted on the night of the incident, the police officers had not indicated that the applicant had resisted them, whereas video recordings from the cameras installed in the police cars showed that the officers had dragged the applicant from his car within a few seconds after it had stopped; it was therefore necessary to examine whether the officers’ actions had been proportionate.

Subsequently a pre-trial investigation was opened; it was later discontinued on the grounds that the police officers had acted lawfully, but the latter decision was quashed. In particular, in a decision of 23 February 2021, in which it allowed the applicant’s complaint and quashed the decision to discontinue the investigation, the Kaunas Regional Court stated that the available material gave grounds to believe that the police officers may have exceeded their remit. The investigation was reopened but it was eventually discontinued again, on the same grounds as before, and that decision was upheld by the courts. In the final decision, taken on 7 September 2021, the Kaunas Regional Court held that the force used against the applicant had been proportionate and necessary in the circumstances, because the police had had grounds to believe that he had been driving a stolen car; moreover, he had been driving in a dangerous manner and had refused the officers’ orders to stop.

The applicant complains that he was ill-treated by the police and that the investigation was ineffective. He relies on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

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 Yusiv v. Lithuania , no. 55894/13, §§ 53-62, 4 October 2016)?

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 Gedrimas v. Lithuania , no. 21048/12, §§ 78-84, 12 July 2016)?

The parties are asked to provide to the Court copies of the police officers’ official reports regarding the events described in the present application, the available video recordings of those events and copies of all relevant decisions taken in the domestic proceedings.