7.  The applicants were born in 1976, 1981, 1995 and 1989 respectively and live in Karcsa. They belong to the Roma minority.
8.  On 3 September 2013 the applicants, riding in a car driven by the first applicant, arrived at a petrol station in Sátoraljaújhely, at about midnight.
9.  At the petrol station two police officers called on the applicants to identify themselves, for no apparent reason. When the first applicant produced his ID, the officers made derogatory remarks about the applicants’ Roma origin. Although the applicants offered no resistance, the first applicant was hit in the chest, pressed violently against the car and handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Two additional police cars arrived and the applicants were transported to the Sátoraljaújhely police station.
10.  While in the car, the first applicant was hit in the spine and, once at the police station, was dragged, with his bottom against the ground, into the building while being kicked repeatedly. Inside the police station he was hit repeatedly while held in a detention room.
11.  At the police station, the second applicant’s trousers were pulled off and his testicles squeezed; he was repeatedly hit and kicked and his back was injured with a sharp object. While being assaulted by four or five officers, he was also insulted and told that he, a Roma, should die, or else move away from Sátoraljaújhely.
12.  The third applicant was repeatedly hit and kicked at the petrol station and in the patrol vehicle, but not at the police station.
13.  The fourth applicant was handcuffed, led to a round table inside the police station, his handcuffs were attached to a leg of the table and his leg was then kicked so that he fell under the table, where he was repeatedly kicked or hit in the head. As a result of the beating, his wrist broke.
14.  When the first applicant asked for a doctor, this was refused by the officers who said that he could have a doctor once he was dead. On release, the officers wanted him to sign a waiver stating he had not been assaulted; since he refused to do so, an officer signed the waiver for him. Intimidated, the other applicants signed the waiver.
15.  Prior to their arrival at the petrol station, the applicants had had an altercation with the staff of a local night club where they had not been served for apparently being intoxicated. Police Officers Gy.R. and M.P., passing by the petrol station in a patrol vehicle, recognised the car described by the staff of the night club, stopped and proceeded to check the applicants’ identities at about 12.45 a.m. The applicants did not co-operate and behaved aggressively towards the officers, calling them names. The officers called in reinforcements. They isolated the first and second applicants from the others, handcuffed them with their hands behind their backs by applying physical restraint, and then placed them in the patrol car. The applicants were yelling gross insults at them.
16.  As backup, Police Officers K.L.J., H.Z., M.D., B.R. and D.P.Cs. arrived at the petrol station. They applied physical restraint and handcuffed the third and fourth applicants, and placed them in the police vehicle. All applicants were then transferred to the police station where they were held until after 3 a.m.
17.  In the ensuing proceedings, the first applicant stated that he had handed over his wallet containing his ID card to the officers immediately upon being requested to do so. However, two employees of the petrol station testified that the first and second applicants had refused to prove their identities and had addressed the officers in an unacceptable manner, whereas the latter had instructed the applicants in a business-like, official manner.
18.  The first applicant also stated in his testimony that he must have been hit on the jaw after he had been seated in the patrol car, for he could not remember anything afterwards until he had been pulled out of the car outside the police station. However, in the original criminal complaint filed by the applicants, no mention had been made of any such blow; and no corresponding injury had been recorded in the ensuing medical report – in which it had, on the other hand, been recorded that the first applicant had not become unconscious and had been able to remember the events clearly. Similarly, the criminal complaint filed by the applicants had not contained any reference to what the first applicant stated in his subsequent testimony, namely that he had been kicked in the head – his left temple – on the flight of steps leading to the entrance of the police station. According to the first applicant, his son, the third applicant, had also seen this. However, the latter had not been able to corroborate this in his testimony.
19.  The fourth applicant stated that he had been handcuffed to the leg of a round table. The on-site inspection was unable to confirm this allegation since there had been no round table in the corridor in question at the police station. Furthermore, the fourth applicant alleged that he had suffered a fracture of his left scaphoid bone after he had fallen under the table following being handcuffed to the table leg, where one of the police officers had kept kicking him every ten to fifteen minutes for four to five hours, from the beginning of his detention until his release. He alleged that most of the kicks had hit his head and that there had even been a footprint on his head. His wrist had allegedly been fractured when a kick had hit the handcuff on a hand that he had raised to protect his head. Although the medical examination revealed abrasions of different sizes on various parts of his head, none of those had exceeded 2.5 cm in length and there had been no lesions that had matched a shoe print. In the forensic expert’s opinion, the medically documented injuries of the fourth applicant – epithelial abrasions of the forehead, the left eyebrow, the area anterior to the left ear and both knees (see paragraph 24 below) – could have been caused when he had been handcuffed, a measure that he had resisted; the injuries had not been typical of a beating and had only indicated a weak impact. Redness of the wrist had also been observed but had likely been caused by the handcuffing; whereas the left scaphoid bone fracture had been a residual condition of a former fracture that could have occurred years earlier (see paragraph 28 below).
20.  The third applicant stated initially that he had been hit by one of the officers at the petrol station, and that his arm had then been tightly squeezed while he had been escorted to the patrol car. Later however, he alleged that he had been hit on the back of the head and his arm while inside the patrol car but had not otherwise been assaulted. He could not give an acceptable explanation for this contradiction.
21.  In their testimonies, both the first and the second applicants said that they had been placed in two adjacent detention rooms and repeatedly assaulted every ten to fifteen minutes by several officers for hours on end, involving many blows. However, the medical findings recorded in both cases had indicated only smaller abrasions and bruises. In relation to the first applicant, the fourth applicant mentioned assaults that the first applicant himself had not mentioned during his questioning and which were not described in the criminal report filed by the first applicant either: namely that upon arrival at the police building he had been pulled out of the car and kicked in the spine.
22.  The applicants stated that at the petrol station, one of the officers had said over the radio that “we are taking in gypsies” or “gypsy kids”. However, the audio recordings of the radio traffic did not contain such a statement. One officer had said at one point only that “four young Roma men kicked up a fuss at the petrol station”.
23.  Neither the police officers, nor the security guard on duty at the police station, nor the petrol station staff had provided any support for the allegation that the applicants, who had been under the influence of alcohol and talking to the officers in an extremely rude way, had been assaulted either at the petrol station or in the police building.
24.  The applicants were examined at Sátoraljaújhely Hospital at about 6 p.m. on 4 September 2013. The first applicant was found to have suffusions in his left ear, on his face and chest, on his left arm and elbow, and on his right arm, abrasions on his buttocks, and erythema on both wrists. The second applicant sustained suffusions on his neck and right upper arm, abrasions on his back and lower right arm, and erythema on both wrists. The third applicant was found to have suffusions on his neck and around his right collar bone as well as suffusions and abrasions on both upper arms. The fourth applicant had abrasions on the forehead, above the left eye, next to his ears and on both knees, erythema on both wrists and a fracture of the left scaphoid bone; it was uncertain whether the latter was a recent or an inveterate injury.
25.  The applicants lodged a criminal complaint on 18 September 2013, accusing the officers of ill-treatment. The case was investigated by the Miskolc Investigation Office and, subsequently, by the Debrecen Bureau of the Central Prosecutorial Investigation Office. The public prosecutors in charge of the case obtained video footage, a recording of the police radio traffic, medical reports, police documents, opinions of medical and graphology experts, and testimonies of witnesses, suspects and victims.
26.  On 16 April 2014 the Independent Police Complaints Board, which had been approached by the applicants’ lawyer in parallel to the proceedings outlined above, issued a report on the first applicant’s case. It found that handcuffing him had not been justified in the circumstances and had been contrary to human dignity, especially since his hands had been handcuffed behind his back. It also found that his prolonged detention at the police station had breached his right to liberty. However, in terms of the entire incident, the Board was not convinced that excessive force had been applied.
With regard to the remainder of the issues, namely the first applicant’s rights to health, human dignity, equal treatment and non-discrimination, the Board identified no breach of his fundamental rights, essentially for want of conclusive evidence and because there had been differing versions of events that could not be reconciled.
27.  On 15 May 2014 the Board issued a report on the fourth applicant’s case. Its conclusions were similar to those in the first applicant’s case.
28.  On 22 and 29 May 2014 the opinions of two forensic experts were obtained in the fourth applicant’s criminal case. One expert was of the view that the abrasions and erythema he had sustained could be explained by the melee that had occurred when he had resisted being handcuffed or by his immobilisation. As regards the broken scaphoid bone, the expert found that it was an inveterate lesion that had occurred at least six to eight months prior to the incident. In sum, the expert stated that the fourth applicant’s allegation that he had been assaulted for hours on end was not supported by the medical findings. In the other expert opinion, a radiologist stated that the broken scaphoid bone could not have been related to the incident and had occurred years earlier.
29.  On 10 July 2014 the Board issued reports on the second and third applicants’ cases. Its conclusions were again similar to those in the first applicant’s case.
30.  On 21 August 2014 the Investigation Office discontinued the prosecution against the police officers. It held that the testimonies of the applicants had been exaggerated, contradictory and modified several times, and that the findings of fact could not enable it to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the injuries had been deliberately caused by the officers exceeding the use of force necessitated by the applicants’ own conduct.
31.  On 14 October 2014 the Attorney General’s Office rejected a complaint by the applicants against the discontinuation order. It pointed out that the witness testimonies and the audio recordings refuted the applicants’ allegations of racist motivation and utterances. It further underlined that the applicants’ injuries had not provided evidence of any use of force exceeding that which had been prompted by the applicants’ own conduct; it also observed that in the forensic medical expert’s opinion (see paragraph 28 above), the fourth applicant’s scaphoid bone fracture had been a pre-existing condition. As regards the lawfulness and proportionality of the use of force, the Attorney General’s Office held that the information available on the case was insufficient to reconcile the opposing versions.
32.  The applicants’ attention was drawn to the possibility of pursuing their complaint as substitute private prosecutors, but they did not avail themselves of this legal avenue.