Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35
October 2001
H.D. v. Poland (dec.) - 33310/96
Decision 7.6.2001 [Section IV]
Article 5
Article 5-1-e
Alcoholics
Detention in sobering-up centre: inadmissible
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Ill-treatment during arrest and during detention at a sobering-up centre: admissible
The applicant, who suffers from diabetes, was arrested by policemen on a train, where she claimed she had fallen into a hypoglycaemic coma. The policemen, believing she was drunk, attempted to take her to the railway police station. She apparently resisted arrest and alleges that she was beaten and kicked. She was then taken to a sobering-up centre, where she was examined by a doctor who found her to be intoxicated. She maintained that she was refused insulin at the centre and was tied to a bed. A test showed alcohol in her blood. She was released after 15½ hours. She was examined the following day by a forensic expert who reported six serious bruises which could have been caused by kicks. At her request, criminal proceedings were instituted against the policemen. During the proceedings, she admitted to having acted aggressively when woken up by the policemen on the train. These proceedings were discontinued, the prosecutor finding that no offence had been committed. The Regional Prosecutor ordered further investigations, but the proceedings were discontinued once more, the District Prosecutor considering that if the policemen had struck the applicant on the legs with truncheons, this had been lawful.
Admissible under Article 3: It cannot be said that in cases where the national law provides for several parallel remedies in the sphere of both civil and criminal law, the person concerned, after having made a sustained but eventually unsuccessful attempt to obtain redress through one such remedy must necessarily try all other means. Therefore, after the prosecutor had discontinued the investigation instituted at the applicant’s request, she was not required to bring a private prosecution against the policemen. Moreover, in cases where an individual has an arguable claim under Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for ill-treatment. Thus the applicant, by asking the authorities to institute criminal proceedings into her allegations of ill-treatment discharged her duty under Article 35 § 1 to afford the State an opportunity to redress the matter through its own legal system.
Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1 (e): The applicant was detained under section 40 of the 1982 Law dealing with the fight against alcoholism. The provision in question laid down two conditions to justify detention: first, that the person concerned be intoxicated and, second, that his or her behaviour be offensive or that his or her condition be such as to endanger his or her own or other persons’ life or health. In the instant case, before being detained the applicant was examined by a doctor who confirmed that she was intoxicated and recommended that she be kept in the sobering-up centre for ten hours. Furthermore, in the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant never denied that after having been woken up by the policemen she had behaved aggressively. Several policemen and two doctors from the centre described her behaviour in similar terms, notably “aggressive” and “offensive”. Therefore, the applicant’s detention was covered by section 40 of the 1982 law and nothing suggested that the authorities acted arbitrarily in taking the applicant to the sobering-up centre. Having regard to her condition and to the circumstances in which she was detained, her detention could not be considered unnecessary: 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy