5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  On 2 June 2007 the applicant had an argument with a taxi driver because the driver had refused to return his change after he had paid for a taxi ride. Following their verbal argument, the taxi driver drove the applicant against his will to a police station. 7.  When the applicant entered the police station and informed the police that he wished to lodge a complaint against the taxi driver he was insulted and beaten by three unidentified police officers. The police officers punched him in the face and kicked him in the ribs for ten minutes. Subsequently they handcuffed him to a metal rail for twenty minutes. 8.  Immediately after the incident the applicant managed to call two friends and a lawyer on his mobile phone. They arrived shortly afterwards at the police station and took pictures of the applicant while he was still handcuffed and had blood on his face as a result of an open wound near his right eye. 9.  The applicant attached to his initial letter to the Court several photographs allegedly taken in the police station which show him in handcuffs and chained to a rail and with a bleeding injury under his right eye. 10.  On the same day the applicant was asked by a fourth police officer to give a statement with regard to the incident. At the same time, one of the police officers who had hit him informed the applicant that he had fined him 200 Romanian lei (RON) – approximately 55 euros (EUR) – because he had verbally abused the taxi driver and the police officers. 11.  After he had left the police station, the applicant went to the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute in order to ask for an expert medical report in respect of his injuries. 12.  On 2 June 2007 the applicant had an argument with a taxi driver because the driver had refused to allow him to get into his taxi with a bottle of beer. The applicant was drunk, aggressive and – according to eyewitnesses – had a bruise under the right eye by the time he arrived at the police station. 13.  Inside the police station, the police officers handcuffed the applicant to a metal rail, but without hitting him. The police officers did not cause any injuries to the applicant, except around the area where the handcuffs were attached to his wrists. Moreover, the applicant was not subjected to a level of physical violence exceeding that required by the handcuffing procedure. 14.  On 5 June 2007 the applicant brought criminal proceedings against the taxi driver for unlawful deprivation of liberty and insult, and against the three police officers who had hit him for abuse of office by restricting his rights, abusive behaviour and insult. In addition, he asked the investigating authorities to identify the three police officers and the taxi driver involved in the incident. 15.  On 26 June 2007, pursuant to the applicant’s request of 2 June 2007, the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute produced an expert medical report. The report noted that the applicant had slightly swollen lesions around the mouth area; a swollen area (on the right side of his face) in the centre of which was an open wound covered with coagulated blood; superficial scrapes over his right clavicle and on his right forearm; and bruising on the right forearm and left arm. The expert medical report concluded that the injuries could have been caused on 2 June 2007 and that the applicant had suffered traumatic injuries which could have been caused by his having been struck with a solid object, scratching and finger compression. The injuries required seven to eight days of medical treatment. The report also noted that after a medical examination carried out at the thoracic surgery ward of Bucharest Emergency University Hospital, he was diagnosed with a simple thoracic contusion caused by physical violence and a bruised eyelid. 16.  On 1 July 2009 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office, after it had identified the taxi driver and all the police officers on duty on the day of the incident (including the three police officers involved in the incident, namely, N.B., V.L.G. and C.P.), discontinued the criminal investigation opened at the request of the applicant for unlawful deprivation of liberty and abusive behaviour on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed. It noted that according to the police officers’ statements, the applicant had been drunk on the day of the incident. As soon as he had entered the police station he had started insulting the officers and had become increasingly violent. 17.  The prosecutor’s office also noted that according to police officers C.V. and N.A.T., the applicant had already had an injury on his face, which had stopped bleeding by the time he had entered the police station. Police officers N.B., V.L.G. and C.P. had also confirmed that the applicant had been drunk and aggressive and that he had had an injury on his face which had already stopped bleeding. The taxi driver, R.D., had confirmed the police officers’ statements and had declared that the applicant had repeatedly refused to leave his car and that he had not seen the officers abuse the applicant either physically or verbally inside the police station. Two other witnesses – namely, D.A. and V.D.F., who were friends of the applicant – had confirmed that the applicant had attended a party and that afterwards he had asked them to go to the police station because he had been abused by police officers. When they had arrived at the station they had seen the applicant handcuffed to a metal rail and that he had a facial injury, but they had not seen the police officers abuse him. 18.  The prosecutor’s office held that there was no evidence in the file that the police officers had physically or verbally abused the applicant or that the taxi driver had deprived him of his liberty. Moreover, the applicant had been lawfully immobilised because he had been aggressive. Furthermore, the officers had immobilised the applicant by using only the minimum level of force required. The applicant challenged the decision before the higher prosecutor. 19.  On 12 March 2010 the higher prosecutor attached to the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s challenge as ill-founded. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. 20.  On 1 June 2010 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the prosecutor’s office as ill‑founded. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. 21.  On 29 June 2010 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and referred the case back to the first‑instance court for re-examination. It held that the first-instance court had failed to summon the taxi driver during the court proceedings and to examine the applicant’s complaint in respect of the taxi driver. 22.  On 22 September 2010 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the prosecutor’s office of 1 July 2009 and 12 March 2010 and ordered the prosecutor’s office to re‑open the criminal investigation. It held that the prosecutor’s office had dismissed only some of the criminal complaints lodged by the applicant against the three police officers and the taxi driver and had omitted to examine the others. The police officers appealed on points of law against the judgment. 23.  On 18 November 2010 the Bucharest County Court dismissed as ill‑founded the police officers’ appeal on points of law. 24.  On 16 September 2011 the prosecutor’s office discontinued the criminal investigation against the taxi driver and the three police officers on the ground that according to the available evidence no unlawful acts had been committed. The applicant challenged the decision before the higher prosecutor attached to the prosecutor’s office. 25.  On 2 December 2011 the higher prosecutor attached to the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s challenge as ill-founded. The applicant appealed against the decisions before the domestic courts. 26.  On 14 March 2012 the District Court allowed in part the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 16 September 2011. The court ordered the prosecutor’s office to reopen the criminal investigation regarding the offences of abusive behaviour and abuse of office in respect of the three police officers and regarding the offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty in respect of the taxi driver. 27.  The court held in respect of the offence of abusive behaviour that the preliminary investigation carried out had not met the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. The court first noted that the investigation had not been independent, as most of the preliminary investigation (including the questioning of the four police officers and two of the applicant’s witnesses) had not been carried out by a prosecutor but by other police officers who belonged to another section of the Bucharest Police Department (and who therefore belonged to the same organisational structure and were subject to the same chain of command as the officers under investigation). Moreover, the decisions of the prosecutor’s office had relied on the statements collected by the police officers and not the prosecutor himself. Furthermore, the investigation had not been thorough and had failed to clarify the circumstances of the case. 28.  In particular, the court found that the prosecutor’s office had relied only on corroborating evidence and had failed to provide reasons for dismissing the evidence supporting the applicant’s allegations. Moreover, given the conflicting evidence, the preliminary investigation had not clarified whether the origin of the applicant’s facial wound had pre-dated the incident or whether it had stopped bleeding by the time he had entered the police station. The origins of the facial wound had also not been investigated or explained. The circumstances of the applicant’s handcuffing, the level of force used and the time needed, and the exact identity of the officers who had handcuffed him had remained unclear. No reasonable explanation had been provided as to how the handcuffing of the applicant’s hands had resulted in the applicant’s face being injured, given that at least four police officers had initially acted against the applicant and that he had been only verbally and not physically violent. 29.  Accordingly, the court instructed the prosecutor to personally hear the applicant, his witnesses and the police officers present at the police station on the day of the incident in order to establish: whether the applicant’s facial wound had pre-dated the time at which he had entered the police station; whether the applicant had fallen on the stairs at the police station (and, if so, the reason for his fall); whether the applicant had intentionally banged his head against the window of a door; whether the testimony that the applicant’s facial wound had been bleeding had also been supported by other witnesses; whether the police officers had initially approached the applicant outside or inside the station; the names of the police officers present when the applicant had entered the station and at the initial stage of the incident; the names of the officers who had arrived only after they had heard noises and what they had witnessed; the moment at which the applicant had been handcuffed, the reasons for his being handcuffed and the actual process of the handcuffing; the identity of the officers who had actually handcuffed the applicant; whether the applicant had been both verbally and physically aggressive prior to his being handcuffed; the length of time for which the applicant had remained handcuffed and the person who had removed the handcuffs; whether the testimony that the applicant had never been handcuffed had been confirmed by the other witnesses; whether the applicant had entered the police station twice and had been aggressive only the second time; and whether the applicant had been carrying a beer bottle when he had arrived at the station. 30.  The court also instructed the prosecutor to arrange a confrontation between the witnesses, the applicant and the police officers in order to clarify any inconsistencies between their statements; to identify and question other individuals present at the party attended by the applicant on the day of the incident in order to establish whether the applicant had had a facial wound prior to his argument with the taxi driver; to obtain the transcripts of the telephone call between one of the applicant’s friends and the emergency services; and to gather any other relevant evidence needed for the investigation. 31.  In respect of the offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty the court held that according to the available evidence, the applicant had indeed been deprived of his liberty. Accordingly, the court held that the prosecutor’s office had to continue the investigation in order to clarify the circumstances of the case and to establish whether the elements of an offence had been made out. 32.  In respect of the offence of abuse of office, the court held that the prosecutor’s office had discontinued the criminal investigation without having actually carried out any investigation with regard to the applicant’s allegations and instructed the prosecutor’s office to hear the applicant and the police officers in that respect. 33.  On 11 May 2012 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation against N.B., V.L.G. and C.P. for abusive behaviour. 34.  On 18 March 2014 the prosecutor’s office extended the criminal investigation against N.B., V.L.G. and C.P. to include abuse of office and unlawful deprivation of liberty. 35.  On 10 April 2014 the prosecutor’s office heard the taxi driver. 36.  On 14, 15 and 27 May 2014 the prosecutor’s office heard police officers S.E.C, C.V. and N.A.T. 37.  On 16 June 2014 the prosecutor’s office heard the applicant. 38.  On 23 June 2014 the prosecutor’s office confronted the applicant with the taxi driver and the three police officers who had allegedly assaulted him. 39.  On 24 June 2014 the prosecutor’s office closed the proceedings (clasat cauza) in respect of the taxi driver for the offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty and in respect of the police officers for the offences of abuse of office and abusive behaviour. It held, inter alia, that according to the available evidence, the taxi driver’s actions had lacked all the elements of an offence. Moreover, it was clear that the applicant had been immobilised against his will by C.P., N.B. and V.L.G., and had been handcuffed to a metal rail. The injury on the applicant’s face could have been caused by a cut or a scratch and must have already existed by the time the applicant had arrived at the police station. The fact that it had started bleeding again during the time he had spent at the station was due to the removal of the dried blood during the forcible handcuffing procedure. The applicant’s allegation that he had been repeatedly hit and kicked by the three police officers had not been supported by any evidence. In fact, the absence of more severe injuries had made it difficult to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, the officers’ aforementioned violent behaviour. 40.  The applicant’s remaining lesions could have been caused during the forcible handcuffing and by the handcuffs themselves, given that the applicant had been struggling and had been resisting being handcuffed. The applicant’s statement that following his fall on the stairs he had injured both his arms and that his hand had been squeezed by officer C.P. had not been supported by the medical expert report. The bruises on the applicant’s right arm and in the clavicle area could have been caused by his immobilisation. 41.  The applicant appealed against the decision of the prosecutor’s office before the domestic courts on the ground that it had complied only in part with the instructions received from the court on 14 March 2012. He also argued that the prosecutor’s office had failed to carry out a speedy and effective investigation. 42.  On 16 February 2015 the Bucharest District Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part. It closed the proceedings in respect of the offence of abusive behaviour on the ground that the prosecution of that offence had become time-barred. However, it referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office for criminal proceedings to be opened against the three police officers and the taxi driver for unlawful deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, it upheld the decision of the prosecutor’s office to close the proceedings with regard to the applicant’s allegation of abuse of office. Lastly, relying on Article 20 § 2 of the Romanian Constitution and Articles 13 and 3 of the Convention, it found that the prosecutor’s office had failed to carry out an effective investigation in respect of the applicant’s allegations of degrading treatment; accordingly, it asked the Prosecutor General attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal to assess the need to take over the case in the light of the refusal of the prosecutor’s office to comply with the final judgments of the courts. 43.  The parties provided the Court with only the operative part of the judgment of 16 February 2015 and failed to submit a full copy of the aforementioned judgment. 44.  The proceedings are still pending before the domestic authorities.