5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Rzeszów. 6.  During the evening of 23 December 2002 the applicant had an argument with his wife. The applicant's wife called the police and four policemen arrived. Both the applicant and his wife had been drinking. The applicant's wife wanted him to be taken by the police to a sobering-up centre. 7.  The applicant wanted to get dressed to go out and when he tried to get out of his armchair he was attacked by one of the policemen, who started strangling him. Three other police officers joined their colleague. They pulled the applicant's arms backwards and tried to push him to the ground. The applicant resisted. The police officers called another police car and three or four other policemen arrived. The police officers pushed the applicant to the floor and then they punched him on the head. Subsequently the applicant was handcuffed with his arms behind his back and taken downstairs. The police officers did not let him get dressed to go out or put on his shoes. He was taken outside barefoot. It was minus twenty degrees. While being taken downstairs he was also pushed and kicked. The events in the street were observed from a window on the fourth floor by the applicant's neighbour. 8.  He was put in the back of the police vehicle together with two police officers. In the police van he was beaten on the head. On the way to the sobering-up centre the police van stopped at Ciepłownicza Street and the applicant was “kicked out” of the car. He was then pushed to the ground with his face in the snow and kicked and beaten by four policemen for about twenty minutes. One of them tightened the applicant's handcuffs. The applicant was then put back in the van and taken to the sobering-up centre. The applicant informed the doctor in the sobering-up centre that he had been beaten up by the police officers. The doctor decided that the applicant should be taken first to the hospital. 9.  The police officers took the applicant to the hospital, where his wounds were dressed. While he was leaving the hospital he was again hit by one of the police officers on the back of the head. He was taken back to the sobering-up centre where he was qualified as “dangerous” and attached to a bed with safety belts. For about four hours he was not allowed to go to the toilet. 10.  Subsequently, the applicant was taken from the sobering-up centre to a police station where he was charged with insulting police officers and questioned. 11.  During the evening of 23 December 2002 the applicant had an argument with his wife. The applicant was aggressive and hit his wife several times on the head. Both the applicant and his wife had been drinking. The applicant's wife called the police and ran out of their building; she waited outside for the police. Two police officers arrived and they went with the applicant's wife to the applicant's flat. The police officers asked the applicant for his identity card. This request made the applicant aggressive; he started punching them. Therefore the police officers decided to use force; they pushed him to the ground. The applicant resisted and the police officers called another police patrol. Shortly afterwards two other police officers arrived and helped put handcuffs on the applicant's wrists with his hands behind his back. 12.  During the police intervention the applicant's mother-in-law was in the flat, but she stayed in her room and did not witness the whole incident. 13.  The police officers tried to take the applicant downstairs. In the meantime they called another police car. After a few minutes another six police officers arrived. While the applicant was being taken downstairs he kicked and spat at the police officers. At the bottom of the stairs the applicant fell on to his knees and his face hit the ice on the pavement. 14.  He was then put in the back of the police vehicle together with two police officers, who had to use physical force because the applicant was trying to get out. The applicant was transported to the sobering-up centre. The other police vehicle followed. They took the shortest route and did not stop. The applicant continued to behave in an aggressive way. 15.  When they arrived at the sobering-up centre, the applicant was escorted by four police officers, because he was still very aggressive. 16.  In the sobering-up centre the doctor decided that the applicant should be taken first to the hospital because of the wounds on his face. 17.  The applicant was taken to the hospital in an ambulance and two police officers followed in a police van. The applicant's wounds were dressed in the hospital. The applicant was not handcuffed. 18.  He was taken back to the sobering-up centre in a police van. He was still aggressive and had to be attached to a bed with safety belts. 19.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant was released from the sobering-up centre. 20.  Early on 23 December 2002, at 3.41 a.m., the applicant was examined in the Rzeszów hospital. The relevant medical certificate says:
“beaten up, contused wound on the right eyebrow, haematoma of the right upper eyelid, chafing on the chin and forehead on the left side. Condition indicates consumption of alcohol” 21.  At 12.35 p.m. on 23 December 2002, after leaving the sobering-up centre, the applicant was again examined by a doctor in the Rzeszów hospital. The relevant medical certificate says:
“beaten up, contused wound on the right eyebrow sutured, haematoma of the left eyelid, contusion and chafing on the head, lower lip, chafing on both wrists and fingers of the left hand, contusion with subcutaneous haematoma in the lumbar region”. 22.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant underwent another medical examination. The relevant medical certificate says:
“on 23 December 2002 beaten up by police officers (home intervention), treated in the Rzeszów emergency service at 3.41.
(...)
On 24 December 2002 he complains of pain in the lumbar region, arms, headache and vertigo. Similar physical symptoms to those displayed in the emergency service ‑ swelling of both hands, pain in the hands and cranium on palpation, pain on movement of the head. The above symptoms and physical state will cause a health problem for a period exceeding seven days”. 23.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant requested the Rzeszów District Prosecutor to institute proceedings against the police officers who had arrested him. The applicant alleged that the police officers had committed an offence of abuse of power. 24.  On 31 March 2003 the Rzeszów District Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings, finding that the policemen's actions did not constitute an offence of abuse of power. In the course of the investigation a forensic expert was appointed. He came to the conclusion that the applicant's injuries could have been sustained in the circumstances described by the applicant but that they could also have been sustained as a result of the applicant's falling and hitting a hard surface. The prosecutor also heard witnesses, including the applicant's neighbour N.U., who testified that he had seen the applicant in front of the house being pulled by two policemen and then kicked once by each of them. He could not see what happened when the applicant was being placed in the police van. The applicant's mother-in- law, S.S., also testified that she had seen the applicant being hit on the head by police officers, strangled and kicked. The prosecutor also heard employees of the sobering-up centre, who confirmed that the applicant had been behaving aggressively. The police officers who took part in the intervention denied kicking the applicant and submitted that the physical force used against the applicant had been necessary, taking into account his aggressive behaviour. 25.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant appealed against the district prosecutor's decision. 26.  On 23 September 2003 the Rzeszów District Court quashed the decision and remitted the case. The court found that the investigation had not been conducted thoroughly and that the prosecutor had drawn erroneous conclusions from the evidence. It further found that the prosecutor had failed to give reasons as to why he had based his decision on the statements given by the policemen and why he had rejected those of the applicant and the statements given by his family and neighbour. 27.  On 24 October 2003 the Rzeszów District Prosecutor again discontinued the proceedings, finding no indication of an offence of abuse of power committed by the police officers. 28.  On 10 November 2003 the applicant appealed. 29.  On 18 December 2003 the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor quashed the decision, finding that the case, especially the course of events at the time the applicant was transported from his home to the sobering-up centre, had not been thoroughly examined, and sent the case back to the district prosecutor for re-examination. 30.  On 27 February 2004 the Rzeszów District Prosecutor again discontinued the proceedings. As regards the course of events during the applicant's transport from his home to the sobering-up centre, the prosecutor checked the time needed to cover the journey and the precise time from the beginning of the intervention to the applicant's arrival at the sobering-up centre, and found the applicant's version not credible. The prosecutor decided not to hear the testimony of the applicant's mother-in-law “due to her speech impediment which made her statements incomprehensible” and relied on her statements given during the previous stage of the proceedings. The prosecutor further found that the testimonies given by the applicant's family and neighbour were not consistent; the applicant's wife said she had not seen her husband being kicked or beaten by the police officers, whereas his mother-in-law saw him being kicked and the neighbour confirmed that the policemen had kicked the applicant “at least once”. 31.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant appealed. 32.  On 21 April 2004 the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor upheld the challenged decision. 33.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant's lawyer lodged a private bill of indictment with the Rzeszów District Court against four of the policemen who had arrested him. 34.  On 14 October 2004 the Rzeszów District Court gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings for “manifest lack of basis for the prosecution” (z oczywistego braku podstaw oskarżenia). 35.  On 5 November 2004 the applicant's lawyer appealed against that decision. 36.  On 5 December 2005 the Rzeszów District Court gave judgment and acquitted the accused policemen. The court based its findings mainly on the statements given by the police officers who had taken part in the intervention on 23 December 2002 and the doctors who had treated the applicant in the hospital. The court found the various statements to be consistent and complementary. 37.  The court did not find credible the statements given by the applicant's mother-in-law in favour of the applicant, finding that she lived in the same flat as the applicant and had been under constant pressure because of arguments between the applicant and his wife. It appears that the mother-in-law was not heard before the court which referred to her statements given in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In those proceedings she testified that she had seen the intervention in the apartment. However, the court relied on the statements of the four accused police officers according to which the applicant's mother-in-law had remained in her room during the whole of the intervention. The court did not refer to S.S.'s alleged speech impediment. 38.  Likewise, the statement given by the applicant's neighbour was found not to be credible because he had witnessed the incident from a considerable distance, namely from his window on the fourth floor and, moreover, in the middle of the night. The court also found that the applicant's neighbour had been heard on two occasions and that his statements had varied considerably. 39.  The court did not hear the applicant's wife, observing that she had been sentenced for making false statements in the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the incident in question. 40.  As regards the applicant's submissions the court found them “subjective and untrue, given in order to take revenge on the police officers who had participated in the intervention”. 41.  On 6 January 2006 the applicant appealed against this judgment. 42.  On 28 April 2006 the Rzeszów Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment. 43.  On 30 April 2003 a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Rzeszów District Court. He was charged with insulting and assaulting police officers and uttering threats against them during his arrest. 44.  On 12 March 2004 the Rzeszów District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant as charged. 45.  The applicant appealed. 46.  On 5 July 2004 the Rzeszów Regional Court partly amended the first-instance judgment, acquitted the applicant of one count of assault and sentenced him to a fine.