5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Timişoara. 6.  In the evening of 12 May 2001, after 9 p.m., seven masked police officers, who were members of the special intervention forces, stopped a car in which the applicant was a passenger. The police were searching for a group of suspected criminals. 7.  According to the applicant, the police violently dragged the five people out of the car, held them on the ground and handcuffed them. He also claimed that one of the masked police officers hit him with his fist, from the back, on the left side of his thorax. At that point, he recognised his aggressor as being B.F., with whom he had had an altercation two years earlier. 8.  The police realised the persons they had stopped were not the suspects they were looking for and they released them soon after they arrived at the police headquarters. The applicant claimed that B.F. had said: “We didn’t have you down for today, that’s just how it turned out. The tables have turned, loser” (“nu erai programat pentru astăzi, dar aşa s-a nimerit; vezi, măi fraiere, ca s-a întors roata?”).
While in custody, the applicant complained of stomach pains. 9.  At 1.05 a.m. the next day the applicant went to hospital complaining of stomach pains. The doctor on duty noted a post-traumatic diffused swelling in the abdominal area, but considered that no surgical intervention was required at that time. 10.  As his condition deteriorated, on 15 May 2001 at 0.50 a.m. he returned to the hospital. He was immediately operated on for a ruptured spleen and the organ was removed. He remained in hospital until 22 May 2001.
On 23 May 2001 the forensic doctor examined the applicant and issued a report stating that he had suffered a ruptured spleen. He estimated that the applicant needed 25 days to recover. He considered that the injury had posed a danger to the applicant’s life, that it could have dated from 12 May and possibly resulted from the applicant having been hit with a hard object. 11.   The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against B.F., whom he accused of having seriously endangered his physical integrity. He sought damages. 12.  The Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Timişoara Military Court started an investigation. It took evidence from the applicant, B.F. and the other persons who had been present on 12 May 2001. Two passengers from the car and one police officer stated that they had heard B.F. saying to the applicant: “We didn’t have you down for today, that’s just how it turned out”. The same police officer said that he had also heard B.F. saying: “The tables have turned, loser”. One of the passengers said that he had seen B.F. hit the applicant and two other passengers said they had heard the applicant shouting with pain. The other police officers denied that they had seen B.F. hit the applicant. 13.  On 17 May 2002 the Timişoara Forensic Institute, consulted by the prosecutor, confirmed that the ruptured spleen could have been caused by a blow to the abdomen. 14.  On 24 September 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office committed B.F. for trial on charges of seriously endangering the applicant’s physical integrity and of abusive behaviour. 15.  The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party. 16.  On 30 October 2002 the Timişoara Military Court transferred the case to the Timiş County Court, in accordance with Law on the demilitarisation of the police.
The County Court heard statements from the applicant and five witnesses, of whom three were police officers. Several documents were adduced as evidence in the case. 17.  On 28 May 2003 the County Court considered that the evidence in the file proved that the attack had taken place and that there had been a causal link between the attack and the applicant’s health problems. It therefore found B.F. guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. B.F. was also ordered to pay the applicant 100,000,000 Romanian lei for non-pecuniary damage. 18.  B.F. appealed against the County Court’s decision. 19.  On 20 October 2003 the Timişoara Court of Appeal reversed the decision on the ground that there was not enough evidence in the file to prove that B.F. had injured the applicant or to establish the cause of the applicant’s injury.
The court noted that the incident had occurred in circumstances which made it impossible for the applicant to recognise his alleged attacker: it had happened very quickly, visibility had been bad and the police officers had been wearing intervention suits and masks. It considered that the applicant could have injured himself when he had been pulled out of the car – and B.F. had not taken part in that operation – or even before the incident with the police. It considered that the evidence in the file indicated that B.F. had been the driver of one of the two police cars involved in the incident and that, according to his remit, he was responsible for ensuring his colleagues’ protection; in that capacity he had not been involved in removing the applicant and the others from their car.
The court also considered that the investigation had not been properly conducted, that the prosecutor had failed to identify other witnesses, notably passers-by who had been reported as being in the area where the incident had taken place. 20.  The applicant appealed on points of law. In a final decision of 24 March 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, sitting in a three‑judge panel, quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision and upheld the County Court’s judgment.
It considered that the witness testimonies, including the one given by a police officer, concurred to prove B.F.’s guilt. The High Court concluded that B.F. had hit the applicant in revenge for their previous dispute and that nothing in the events of 12 May 2001 had justified such a violent attack. 21.  B.F. sought the Procurator’s General intervention to have the final decision annulled (recurs în anulare). The Procurator General lodged the extraordinary appeal sought by B.F., as he considered that the High Court and the County Court had committed serious errors in assessing the evidence. 22.  On 15 November 2004 the High Court, in a nine-judge bench, examined the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision and returned the case to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Timiş County Court to continue the investigation.
The High Court noted that B.F.’s conviction was based mostly on the passengers’ statements, to the detriment of the police’s version of the incident which had shown that there had been no physical contact between B.F. and the applicant. It considered that the prosecutor should have pursued the investigation further in order to establish beyond doubt who had injured the applicant. The prosecutor should have also questioned the passers-by, who could have provided an unbiased account of the incident.
Its decision was final. 23.  The prosecutor started a new investigation. He re-examined the events of 12 May, took statements from and organised confrontations between the applicant and the police officers who had participated in the incident, including B.F. They all maintained their previous positions. B.F. took a polygraph test, the result of which was: absence of simulated behaviour. The applicant refused to take the test, arguing that it was not reliable evidence. 24.  At the prosecutor’s request, the Timişoara Forensic Institute re‑examined the medical evidence. On 27 July 2005 it concluded that there had been a causal link between the incident of 12 May and the applicant’s ruptured spleen. However, the expert report did not exclude the existence of other traumas that could have caused the spleen to rupture. 25.  On 19 October 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office decided to end the investigation against B.F. and continue to try identifying the real attacker. It considered that the evidence gathered was not sufficiently strong to reverse the presumption of innocence in B.F.’s favour. It noted, in particular, the absence of direct proof of a violent attack, the applicant’s hesitations during the investigation, as well as the conclusion of the expert medical report which did not exclude the existence of other traumas that could have caused the spleen to rupture. 26.  The applicant complained against the prosecutor’s decision. On 28 November 2005 the chief prosecutor dismissed his objection. 27.  The applicant further complained before the Timiş County Court. He claimed that the evidence against B.F., including the conclusions of the medical report, had been ignored or misinterpreted and that the prosecutor had overlooked the fact that it was difficult to accurately recall what had happened four years after the incident, which explained his hesitations. He also pointed out that the polygraph test was not recognised as evidence by the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he had refused that test because it would have been carried out by B.F.’s colleagues.
On 5 June 2006 the applicant reiterated those arguments before the County Court. 28.  On 25 September 2006 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It considered that there was no evidence in the file to support the allegations of guilt. The court did not reply to the applicant’s arguments. 29.  The applicant appealed against the County Court’s decision, reiterating the evidence in the file that supported his version of events. He also complained that he had not been re-examined by the Forensic Institute.
On 5 March 2007 the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It considered that the doubts as to B.F.’s guilt justified the prosecutor’s decision and that B.F. enjoyed the presumption of innocence. The Court of Appeal did not give specific responses to the applicant’s arguments.