5.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1976 respectively and live in Budapest. 6.  At about 3.45 a.m. on 1 October 2006 the applicants were riding a motorbike in Budapest. Police Officers N. and S. halted them in order to carry out an identity check. The applicants produced American passports. 7.  According to the applicants, the procedure to check their identities degenerated as follows. After Mr Réti’s stepping aside and attempting to make a cell phone call, Officer N. started to behave aggressively and repeatedly kicked him. Officer S. first tried to restrain his partner, but following a remark made by Ms Fizli, he also became aggressive; the officers hit Mr Réti repeatedly and finally handcuffed him, forcing him to the ground. Subsequently, reinforcement was called in. Several officers arrived and joined their colleagues in hitting Mr Réti. When Ms Fizli intervened, an officer pushed her in the chest and then down on the ground, knelt on her face, ordered her to shut up, and finally banged her head against the soil. Simultaneously, another officer knelt on Mr Réti’s back, while an officer forced his truncheon against his neck, thus compressing his throat. Mr Réti lost consciousness. Eventually, the applicants were driven to the police station in two separate police vehicles. 8.  The Government gave the following account of the incident. Despite their understanding of the purpose of the police measure, Mr Réti and Ms Fizli initially insisted on speaking English and were not willing to cooperate, therefore the police officers, Officer N. and Officer S., applied force. As Mr Réti resisted, the police patrol called in reinforcements and handcuffed him with the help of the officers just arriving. Ms Fizli questioned in anger the police officers applying force against her partner and, in the heat of the argument, suddenly turned against Officer P., one of the reinforcement officers. It was perceived that she was trying to hit the officer with the cell phone she held in her hand. Officer P. raised his hands in defence and pushed her away. Ms Fizli bounced back from the officer’s hands, lost her balance and fell against the officer standing behind her, who immobilised her.
Mr Réti was then driven to the police station on suspicion of drunken driving and violence against an official. In the police car, he furiously banged his head against the window and kept kicking the window; therefore, force had to be used to restrain him. On account of her behaviour and lack of cooperation, Ms Fizli was also handcuffed, placed in another police car and taken to the police station. 9.  Committed to the Budapest II District Police Headquarters, the applicants were tested for blood alcohol levels. Mr Réti was under very mild influence (0.45 g/l) while Ms Fizli was under none.
Subsequently, the applicants were released. 10.  According to the medical report submitted, Mr Réti suffered the following injuries: a contusion and a haematoma on the right cheek, another over the right eye, a further one behind the right knee, several abrasions and contusions on the chest and the belly, and a brain commotion. Ms Fizli had haematomas on her right wrist, several contusions on her right palm, a contusion on her left foot, and a haematoma with a contusion on the right side of her waist. 11.  On 9 October 2006 the applicants filed a criminal report for ill‑treatment in official proceedings. In the subsequent proceedings they maintained in essence the above version of the events. Officers N., S. and P. were interrogated as witnesses. They stated that only lawful force had been applied to overcome the applicants’ resistance. 12.  A forensic expert was appointed, according to whose opinion it could not be determined whether the applicants’ injuries had been caused as they suggested or according to the officers’ version. 13.  On 11 June 2007 the Budapest Investigation Office discontinued the investigation, essentially with regard to the inconclusive medical evidence. 14.  In different proceedings conducted against the applicants for violence against officials, Officers N., S., P. and V. were heard as witnesses. Officers N. and S. were also confronted with the applicants. This procedure was eventually discontinued on 15 May 2007 for want of conclusive evidence. 15.  The applicants filed a complaint against the discontinuation of their case (see paragraph 13 above). They submitted a number of motions in order to have more evidence taken. However, on 24 July 2007 the Budapest Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaint. 16.  On 27 September 2007 the applicants, acting as substitute private prosecutors, filed a motion with the Budapest Regional Court.
The court held five hearings and heard the applicants as well as Officers N., S. and P., along with several witnesses. It took testimonies from the other officers present at the incident and the medical expert. In these proceedings, no confrontation took place, although Ms Fizli by then stated that an Officer M. – rather than the accused Officer P. – had brutalised her. For the court, this amounted to an inconsistency.
In his final address to the court, the applicants’ lawyer pointed out that several contradictions in the file and the testimonies were not resolved. In particular, it remained unclear how many times and under what circumstances the officers had forced the applicants to the ground, and how the applicants could strongly smell of alcohol (as reported by the officers) given the very low blood values. 17.  On 5 October 2009 the court acquitted the accused, observing inter alia that the medical evidence was inconclusive.
The applicants appealed. On 21 October 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal held a hearing and upheld the acquittal (service: 29 November 2010).