PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 47709/99) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Polish nationals, Mr Piotr Rachwalski and Ms Agata Ferenc (“the applicants”), on 18 October 1998.

The applicants were represented by Mr Adam Bodnar, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been deprived of their liberty during an unlawful search of their apartment and that the police had used excessive and unjustified force towards them. They complained of a breach of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention.

By a decision of 21 October 2008 the Court declared the application partly admissible.

The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Wągrowiec.

The parties do not fully agree about the facts of the case, which may be summarised as follows.

1. As presented by the applicants

The second applicant lived with a group of friends, including the first applicant, mostly students, in an old and decrepit house they had rented in Wrocław. They occasionally invited their friends to spend a night or a couple of days in their house.

On the night of 14 June 1997 there was a group of students sleeping in the house. At 3 a.m. they were awakened by two police officers patrolling the area. The police enquired whether the inhabitants knew the owner of an unlocked car parked in front of the house.

The applicants and one of their friends, D. S., started a polite discussion with the police officers about the car. It was confirmed that one of the residents of their apartment was the owner of the car. However, the police announced their intention of towing the car away to the police car park. The applicants argued that it was not forbidden or illegal to keep the car unlocked. At the police’s request, they produced their identity cards and the registration card of the car, whose owner was asleep in the house.

The police were not satisfied with their explanation and the dispute became more intense. In reaction to the opinions expressed about the intervention, in particular by D. S., the policemen used truncheons. They hit D. S. several times and handcuffed him. The applicants tried to argue with the policemen, to no avail. The police called other police officers and shortly afterwards approximately ten other policemen arrived. They hit the first applicant with their truncheons several times and the second applicant once. Thereupon D. S. was taken to the police car where he was beaten. The applicants were ordered to stand against a fence. They were pushed and jostled and the policemen insulted them referring to them as “scum”, “slobs”, “queers” (hołota, brudasy, pedały).

Subsequently, a group of policemen, armed with truncheons and guarded by police dogs, entered the house, woke up the other occupants and ordered them to stand against the wall. Then the police searched the house. No information was provided about the grounds, purpose or legal basis for the search. During this time the police showered abuse on the students. They pushed and shoved them. This lasted for about half an hour. Afterwards, the police left the house and warned the students that some of them were in an illegal situation as they were not registered as inhabitants of the house, and threatened that they would be in trouble if they submitted a complaint about the events.

The police left, taking D. S. with them.

On 16 June 1997 the applicants requested to be examined by a forensic medicine specialist. It was established that the first applicant had two long bruises on his left arm, and other bruises on the palm of his hand. The second applicant had a blue mark on her bottom (13 by 9 cm). It was stated that these bruises could have been caused by the use of police truncheons.

2. As presented by the Government

The second applicant and her friend D. S. lived in the house with the owner’s permission. They often received young visitors from all over the country. On the night in question the unlocked car parked in front of the house had seemed very suspicious to the policemen A. C. and R. S., who thought it was stolen and considered that it should be towed away. They had knocked at the window and the second applicant informed them that the owner was in the house. She first objected to the police action at night, and then went to look for the owner of the car among the fourteen young people who were sleeping in the house. The applicants behaved aggressively, loudly expressing opinions about the purpose and nature of the intervention. D. S. raised his voice to the police and pushed A. C.

The police action was a result of the fact that the applicants did not comply with the police requests to provide necessary information. The applicants talked to the police with raised voices and took a very active part in the struggle with the policemen.

The police officer had misinterpreted the first applicant’s intentions when he handed him his documents and had hit him to prevent his being attacked. The applicant was most probably hit once.

The atmosphere was tense. The owner of the car gave the police the keys and documents to the car. As D. S. was unruly and continued to express objections, the policemen decided to arrest him. While he was being taken into custody by the police, he hit one of them in the face. Thereupon truncheons were used against him. Given the attitude of D. S. and of other persons present, the police called for assistance. Two other police patrols and an emergency team arrived. As the applicants were interfering with the arrest of D. S., they were hit with truncheons.

Police officers D. R. and J. G. then entered the house to check the identity of the persons present. After that, the intervention was terminated.

3. The prosecutor’s investigation and conclusion

On 16 June 1997 the applicants requested the Wrocław District Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the police for abuse of authority. On 23 December 1997 the prosecutor refused to do so. He found that no criminal offence had been committed.

The prosecutor considered that the police action had been justified. The police could have reasonably suspected that the unlocked car had been stolen, even though it had not been reported as such. The further developments had certainly come as a surprise to both the police and other persons involved in the incident. The second applicant had objected in a pretentious tone (“pretensjonalny ton głosu”) to having been woken up and to the check on the car taking place at night. She had been informed that the car would be towed away if the owner was not found. She could not locate the owner of the car, as there were many people in the house who did not know each other. The second applicant had woken all of them up in an attempt to find the owner.

D. S. had objected in a loud voice to the police intervention. He had insisted that the intention of the police was to harass the persons in the house. As he had not obeyed the police requests to calm down and the verbal exchange between him and the police officer A. C. had become increasingly heated, it had been decided that he should be taken to the police car. The prosecutor considered that this had been justified in the light of D. S.’s aggressive behaviour. Given that D. S. had been behaving aggressively, direct force had been used against him, including the use of truncheons and handcuffs. It was true that the applicants’ versions of the facts diverged, and these divergences could not be clarified on the basis of evidence from other witnesses, but it was clear that, in the face of his resistance, it had been necessary to use such force in order to take D. S. to the car.

Given the applicants’ behaviour, the police had had to call assistance. They had also felt threatened by the presence of other persons at the scene of the incident. The applicants had been hit as they had ignored the order to let D. S. go so that he could be taken to the car. In the darkness, the police had not noticed that the first applicant had in fact had his documents in his hand in order to show them to the police, and they had thought that he intended to hit them.

It was finally noted that the accounts of the facts given by the persons present at the scene, other than the police, were highly divergent, making it impossible to establish the facts of the case. However, the testimony given by the policemen was coherent. Therefore, the submissions of the other persons could not be considered credible and had to be assessed critically.

The prosecutor concluded that the measures taken by the police had been proportionate to the situation.

4. The appeal against the prosecutor’s decision

The first applicant appealed. He argued that the police brutality and aggression had been totally unjustified. Nothing in the behaviour of the persons present had justified the use of force. The police had entered private property and effected a search of the house without any sound reasons, hitting and insulting the persons sleeping in the house. He argued that he was a law-abiding citizen, a student of two university faculties and a member of the Municipal Council of his town. He had not given any reason to be beaten, verbally insulted and humiliated just at the whim of the police. The police should not intervene in private property at night and hit, insult and humiliate people just because they looked, or lived, differently. The facts as established by the prosecutor did not correspond to what had happened. All the facts had been established on the basis of the arguments of the police, who had apparently been instructed by police lawyers as to what they should say. During the questioning the prosecutor had made unpleasant remarks about the hairstyles, clothes and views of the young inhabitants of the house, which had influenced her decision to discontinue the proceedings. He submitted that the police had humiliated both himself and the others.

The second applicant submitted that the assessment of the evidence had been biased and that the police had clearly abused their authority, insulting and humiliating her and other participants in the incident.

5. The outcome of the appeal

On 20 May 1998 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor upheld the contested decision. He considered that the intervention of the police had been justified in so far as they wanted to verify the identity of the owner of the car. D. S. had behaved aggressively, both verbally and physically. Regardless of whether he had intended to hit A. C. in the face or not, his behaviour could have been perceived as an intentional assault. It was for that reason that a decision to arrest him had been taken. The identity check of the persons present in the house had been necessary as they had insulted the policemen.

The social status of the young people, namely the fact that they were students, imposed certain obligations on them, in particular an obligation to cooperate with the police in the interest of law and order.

The findings of the inquiry had not established that the students had been insulted verbally by the police, as the policemen consistently denied this. Nothing had been found to support the first applicant’s submission that the testimony of the policemen had been suggested to them by the police lawyers.

The prosecutor concluded that the contested decision had to be upheld.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e1
001-93690_a3_em1
CODE
DIRECT
47709/99
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e2
001-93690_a3_em2
DEM
NO_MASK
Polish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e3
001-93690_a3_em3
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Piotr Rachwalski
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e4
001-93690_a3_em4
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Agata Ferenc
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e5
001-93690_a3_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
18 October 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e6
001-93690_a3_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Adam Bodnar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e7
001-93690_a3_em7
LOC
QUASI
Warsaw
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e8
001-93690_a3_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Polish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e9
001-93690_a3_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e10
001-93690_a3_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e11
001-93690_a3_em11
MISC
NO_MASK
apartment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e12
001-93690_a3_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
21 October 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e13
001-93690_a3_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1973
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e14
001-93690_a3_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e15
001-93690_a3_em15
LOC
QUASI
Wągrowiec
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e16
001-93690_a3_em16
MISC
QUASI
lived with a group of friends
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e17
001-93690_a3_em17
DEM
QUASI
students
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e18
001-93690_a3_em18
DEM
QUASI
old and decrepit house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-93690_a3_e19
001-93690_a3_em19
LOC
QUASI
Wrocław
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em20
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e21
001-93690_a3_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
14 June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e17
001-93690_a3_em22
DEM
QUASI
students
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em23
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e22
001-93690_a3_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
3 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em25
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em26
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e11
001-93690_a3_em27
MISC
NO_MASK
apartment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em28
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em29
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em30
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em31
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e24
001-93690_a3_em32
MISC
QUASI
scum
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e25
001-93690_a3_em33
MISC
QUASI
slobs
SEX
insert
001-93690_a3_e26
001-93690_a3_em34
MISC
NO_MASK
queers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e24
001-93690_a3_em35
MISC
QUASI
001-93690_a3_em32
hołota
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e25
001-93690_a3_em36
MISC
QUASI
001-93690_a3_em33
brudasy
SEX
insert
001-93690_a3_e26
001-93690_a3_em37
MISC
NO_MASK
001-93690_a3_em34
pedały
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em38
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em39
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e17
001-93690_a3_em40
DEM
QUASI
students
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e27
001-93690_a3_em41
DATETIME
NO_MASK
about half an hour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em42
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e17
001-93690_a3_em43
DEM
QUASI
students
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em44
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em45
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e28
001-93690_a3_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 1997
HEALTH
insert
001-93690_a3_e29
001-93690_a3_em47
MISC
NO_MASK
examined by a forensic medicine specialist
HEALTH
insert
001-93690_a3_e30
001-93690_a3_em48
MISC
NO_MASK
two long bruises
HEALTH
insert
001-93690_a3_e31
001-93690_a3_em49
MISC
NO_MASK
bruises
HEALTH
insert
001-93690_a3_e32
001-93690_a3_em50
MISC
NO_MASK
blue mark
HEALTH
insert
001-93690_a3_e33
001-93690_a3_em51
QUANTITY
QUASI
13 by 9 cm
HEALTH
insert
001-93690_a3_e31
001-93690_a3_em52
MISC
NO_MASK
bruises
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em53
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em54
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em55
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e34
001-93690_a3_em56
PERSON
QUASI
A. C.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e35
001-93690_a3_em57
PERSON
QUASI
R. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em58
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e36
001-93690_a3_em59
QUANTITY
QUASI
fourteen young people
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em60
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em61
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e34
001-93690_a3_em62
PERSON
QUASI
A. C.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em63
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em64
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em65
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e37
001-93690_a3_em66
PERSON
QUASI
D. R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e38
001-93690_a3_em67
PERSON
QUASI
J. G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em68
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e28
001-93690_a3_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e39
001-93690_a3_em70
ORG
QUASI
Wrocław District Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e40
001-93690_a3_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
23 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em72
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em73
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em74
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e34
001-93690_a3_em75
PERSON
QUASI
A. C.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em76
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em77
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em78
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em79
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em80
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em81
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-93690_a3_e41
001-93690_a3_em82
DEM
QUASI
student of two university faculties
POLITICS
insert
001-93690_a3_e42
001-93690_a3_em83
DEM
QUASI
member of the Municipal Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em84
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e43
001-93690_a3_em85
DATETIME
QUASI
20 May 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e44
001-93690_a3_em86
ORG
QUASI
Wrocław Regional Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e23
001-93690_a3_em87
PERSON
QUASI
D. S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e34
001-93690_a3_em88
PERSON
QUASI
A. C.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e20
001-93690_a3_em89
LOC
NO_MASK
house
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e17
001-93690_a3_em90
DEM
QUASI
students
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-93690_a3_e17
001-93690_a3_em91
DEM
QUASI
students
Piotr Rachwalski
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Piotr Rachwalski