5.  On 23 December 2001, at approximately 10.30 p.m., the applicant was a passenger in a car that was stopped for an identity check by a police patrol outside a cafeteria in the district of Ano Toumpa in Salonika. Dimitrios Zelilof, an acquaintance of the passengers who was passing by, proceeded to ask one of them, Mr Giorgos Kalaitsidis, what was going on. A police officer, who was subsequently identified as Police Sergeant Apostolos Apostolidis, flashed his torch on him and asked him to identify himself. Mr Zelilof replied that he wanted to know whether his friend had a problem. The latter was then asked by another police officer, later identified as Police Constable Zaharias Tsiorakis, to produce his identity card. Mr Zelilof replied that he did not have his identity card with him and suggested that they all go to the nearby police station for an identity check, as his identity card had been issued there. Then, allegedly, one of the police officers asked him whether he was “being the tough guy”. Seconds later, Police Officer Tsiorakis wrapped handcuffs around Dimitrios Zelilof’s fist and then punched him in the mouth. This made him feel dizzy and, as he was falling down, Police Officer Tsiorakis kicked him twice in the chest and abdomen. 6.  The applicant submitted that he had witnessed the above incident and also reported hearing gunshots before he entered the cafeteria, where he headed to the toilets. Police officers went into the cafeteria and violently dragged the applicant out of the toilets into the cafeteria’s main room. They threw him against a pool table and handcuffed him, while allegedly beating him all this time, including twice with a pool cue on his back. The applicant and three other civilians were taken handcuffed to the nearby Ano Toumpa Police Station, where he was allegedly violently beaten by police officers. As a result of the beating, the applicant’s lower jaw was fractured and his gums started bleeding. Following this incident, the applicant was taken to the Aghios Dimitrios State Hospital, from where, after an X-ray to his jaw and some stitches to his head, he was taken back to the police station. After several hours of detention the applicant was charged with attacking and injuring police officers and resisting arrest. 7.  On 24 December 2001, at 4 a.m., the applicant made his defence statement before the Salonika investigating judge, facing charges of releasing a prisoner, assaulting a police officer and causing grievous bodily harm. He mentioned his ill-treatment, while also denying the charges against him. Subsequently, he was taken back to his detention cell until 10 a.m., when he was taken to another police station for fingerprints; he was subsequently referred by the prosecutor to an investigating judge. All this time the applicant allegedly remained handcuffed and, at one point during his transfers from office to office, he fainted. Around noon, he was taken to the investigating judge, who granted him a postponement until 28 December 2001 to prepare his defence statement, and then he was released. The applicant stated that neither the prosecutor nor the investigating judge had reacted to his obvious wounds and his allegations of ill-treatment. 8.  The Government maintained that the identity check on the passengers of the car had been almost complete when Dimitrios Zelilof, who was passing by, had headed towards the police officers. Despite their initial warning, Mr Zelilof ignored the police officers, approached the car and started talking to the passengers. When Police Sergeant Apostolidis asked Mr Zelilof to identify himself, the latter refused to obey and shoved the police officer abruptly with his arm. Officers Hamopoulos and Tsiorakis ran to their colleague’s assistance and tried to handcuff Mr Zelilof. The latter resisted strongly by punching and kicking the above-mentioned officers. 9.  In the meantime Dimitrios and Lazaros Kalaitsidis had appeared from a nearby café and became involved in the argument between Dimitrios Zelilof and the three police officers. While the police officers were trying to handcuff Mr Zelilof and arrest him, Dimitrios and Lazaros Kalaitsidis violently shoved the police officers with their arms and struck them with their arms and legs. By doing so, they managed to prevent them from arresting Mr Zelilof, who fled from the scene. Officer Apostolidis fired a shot in the air in order to scare his assailants away. 10.  Owing to the fact that the incident had taken place close to Toumba police station, as soon as Officer Apostolidis had fired the shot, another group of police officers ran to their assistance. A number of persons who had either actively participated in the incident, among them the applicant, or merely observed it ran away into the nearby cafeteria. Charalambos, Dimitrios and Lazaros Kalaitzidis were arrested. The applicant was found in the toilets, where he was hiding in order to avoid arrest. All the above-mentioned persons were arrested in flagrante delicto and driven to Toumba police station. The applicant was charged with releasing a prisoner and causing unprovoked bodily injury. 11.  According to hospitalisation information note no. 684/2002, issued by the Aghios Dimitrios General Hospital in Salonika on 29 January 2002, the applicant had been transferred to the hospital on 23 December 2001 at 11.50 p.m. He had a cranial injury, a wound on the scalp, a fractured premolar in the right lower jaw and two other fractured teeth. The note also mentioned “Diagnosis: beating reported” and indicated that the applicant had been discharged as soon as medical instructions were given and the wounds were stitched. 12.  According to a hospitalisation note issued on 25 December 2001 by the Georgios Gennimatas State Hospital, the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 24 December 2001 and diagnosed with a fracture of the lower jaw. He had undergone reconstructive surgery whereby plates and screws had been inserted in his jaw. The applicant was discharged on 25 December 2001 with a note that his medical condition had improved. 13.  On 8 January 2002 Salonika police headquarters ordered an administrative investigation in order to ascertain the exact circumstances in which the three police officers had been injured and whether they were liable for any disciplinary offence. The administrative investigation was assigned to an officer serving at the police’s sub-directorate of administrative investigations. As part of the investigation the investigating police officer summoned as witnesses the three police officers who had been involved in the incident, the applicant, two of his acquaintances present at the scene and some other individuals accused of assaulting the police officers. The various witness statements available were studied but no further inquiry was conducted regarding the gunshots fired or the general legitimacy of the initial identity check. It was observed in the report on the administrative investigation, issued on 9 August 2002, that
“persons involved in the incident refused to comply with the police officers’ orders and, furthermore, one of them [Dimitrios Zelilof] had intended to ‘control’ the police officers who were performing the identity check, considering arbitrarily and cheekily that he had a non-existent right ... Taking into account also the unprovoked, violent and disproportionate assault by other individuals on the police officers, it is concluded that the police officers properly assessed the relevant circumstances and acted correctly. The brawl between the police officers and the individuals in question was inevitable. The police officers used necessary physical force against the civilians, mainly in order to defend their physical integrity, which was under imminent threat. There was a clear danger that the police officers’ firearms would be snatched by the individuals concerned in the context of a disproportionate assault by ten to fifteen of them on the police officers. Thus, apart from the injuries inflicted on the police officers, which could easily have been more serious, there was an imminent danger that firearms would be used by civilians in an extreme way (fatal shooting of the police officers, etc.).” 14.  The report also stated:
“The shooting in the air by Police Officer Apostolidis was imperative in order to prevent any adverse situation. His act scared the assailants and allowed the police officers to regain control of the situation and proceed with the arrests of the perpetrators ... To sum up, the use of violence by the police officers was clearly necessary. ... The simple injuries caused to all individuals and police officers that were involved in this incident were absolutely justified by the intensity of the scuffle.” 15.  As regards the alleged ill-treatment on the premises of the police station, the report observed, among other things:
“the violent behaviour of the police officers was alleged in the testimonies of the persons who had caused the illegal acts. Even if these testimonies could not be rejected as such, their accuracy and objectivity could not be taken for granted. Testimonies such as those made by Kalaitsidis and Kampanakis – the cousin and friend respectively of the accused – undoubtedly concern personal opinions and assessments that will be of assistance to the accused during the trial. ... Not all the testimonies have been proven; on the contrary, the police officers (involved in the events) have denied them. The latter insisted in their testimonies that there was no violence in the police station and that all the injuries sustained by the civilians were caused before their transfer to the police station.”
It continued as follows:
“At this point reference should be made to the allegations of individuals concerning unprovoked ill-treatment by ‘mean’ police officers against those who just ‘happened’ to be there or were unrelated to the incident. These [testimonies] could not be taken seriously, nor could they be considered objective. On the contrary, they had to be regarded as defence tactics by their friends/acquaintances, who faced serious criminal charges and whose depositions aim to cast the police officers in a bad light.” 16.  On 11 January 2002 charges were brought against the applicant by the public prosecutor at the Salonika Criminal Court for releasing a prisoner, assaulting police officers and causing grievous bodily harm. 17.  On 22 January 2002 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Salonika Public Prosecutor’s Office, also applying to join the proceedings as a civil party. The complaint was lodged against Police Officers Hamopoulos, Apostolidis and Tsiorakis, as well as against other officers unknown to the applicant who had been involved in the alleged ill-treatment, both during the course of his arrest and subsequently while he was in detention on 23 December 2001. The complaint also concerned the alleged perjury by the police officers who had testified against him under oath during the summary investigation, implicating him in criminal acts which he maintained that he had not committed. 18.  On 29 July 2003 the Indictment Division of the Salonika Criminal Court suspended the prosecution of the police officers until the delivery of an irrevocable decision in the trial against the applicant and other civilians involved in the 23 December 2001 incident (ruling no. 1159/2003). 19.  On 14 January 2005 the applicant was acquitted of all charges against him by the Salonika Criminal Court. The court held that it had not been established through the proceedings that the applicant had injured the police officers in any way but rather that his involvement had boiled down to a verbal dispute between him and the police officers with regard to the incident. The court also considered that the lesser offence of releasing a prisoner had not been established either (decision no. 683/2005). 20.  On 13 June 2005 the applicant applied to the Salonika Criminal Court to reopen the criminal proceedings against the police officers. 21.  On 15 September 2005 the Indictment Division of the Salonika Criminal Court committed Police Officer Apostolidis for trial on charges of causing severe bodily injuries to the applicant inside the police station, intentionally lodging a criminal complaint concerning facts known to be false, perjury and slander. In particular, with regard to the charge of grievous bodily harm, the Indictment Division ruled that the applicant had recognised Officer Apostolidis as the person who had caused bodily injuries to him. It stated that initially the applicant had testified that the three police officers had all used physical force against him but that subsequently, in his deposition taken under oath on 21 February 2003, he had submitted that Officer Apostolidis was the sole perpetrator of the physical violence against him. It was also stated that the applicant had not taken part in the brawl and that it was plausible that he had been injured during and after his arrest. The Indictment Division also admitted that Officer Apostolidis had testified before the Salonika Criminal Court that the applicant had been hit in the course of his arrest. 22.  Moreover, Police Officer Hamopoulos was committed for trial on charges of intentionally lodging a criminal complaint concerning facts known to be false, perjury and slander. Lastly, Police Officer Tsiorakis was committed for trial on charges of perjury. 23.  A hearing before the Salonika Court of Appeal took place on 25 May 2006. The applicant testified that he had been dragged out from the toilets to the cafeteria’s main room by Officer Apostolidis, who, together with other police officers, had beaten him. He further contended that while he was being taken to the police station, Officer Apostolidis had again hit him in the face. H. Mousailidis, an eyewitness, testified that he had seen the applicant being thrown over a pool table and beaten by police officers. Officers Theodoros Kaloudis and Hristos Nounis testified that by the time the applicant had been brought to the police station he was already injured. Moreover, the defendant Hamopoulos stated that the applicant had been brought wounded to the police station. The defendant Apostolidis argued that he had not beaten up the applicant in the police station and that the latter had been beaten while in the cafeteria, although the perpetrator was unknown. Finally, the defendant Tsiorakis stated that the applicant had probably been beaten while he was being arrested. 24.  On 26 May 2006 the Salonika Court of Appeal acquitted all three police officers on all charges. The Court of Appeal held that there were many doubts as to whether bodily injuries had been inflicted on the applicant by Officer Apostolidis inside the police station and that there were discrepancies in the applicant’s testimonies as to the perpetrator of his injuries and the place where he had been beaten. In particular, it considered that the applicant had testified at the hearing that the perpetrator of his injuries had solely been Officer Apostolidis, whereas in his criminal complaint he had claimed that the three defendants together had subjected him to ill-treatment. Moreover, the Court of Appeal observed among other things that the applicant had stated during the hearing that Officer Apostolidis had beaten him inside the police station, whereas the eyewitnesses Mr Mousailidis and Officers Kaloudis and Nounis had stated that he had already been injured by the time he was brought to the police station (judgment no. 1870/2006). The judgment was finalised on 29 June 2006. 25.  In the meantime, on 5 March 2003, the applicant had brought an action in the Salonika Administrative Court, seeking 31,609 euros (EUR) in damages and costs on account of his alleged ill-treatment by police officers during his arrest and inside the police station. It transpires from the file that the proceedings are still pending before the Salonika Administrative Court.