6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Püspökladány. 7.  On 6 March 2010 the applicant got into a fight in a car park in front of a nightclub in Püspökladány, apparently under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The incident was reported to Püspökladány police station. 8.  The applicant asserts that around 3 a.m. he and his girlfriend were sitting in his car, not in traffic, pulled over to the side of the road, when patrolling police officers approached them. According to the file produced in the subsequent criminal proceedings, the applicant refused to take a breathalyser test for alcohol. Following an identity check and a search, he was handcuffed and taken to Püspökladány police station to be held for questioning (előállítás), on suspicion of having committed an offence. According to the police reports, the police officers believed that he was under the influence of either alcohol or drugs. 9.  At the police station the applicant started to insult the police officers and was handcuffed again. According to the applicant, he was also placed in leg restraints, during which time he suffered injuries. He was then transported to the Püspökladány medical emergency service by four police officers for a blood and urine test. 10.  The applicant told a doctor that he was unable to urinate. According to the police reports, the applicant was under the influence of alcohol, “uncooperative, making the insertion of a catheter necessary”; he was also “violent and resisted the procedure”. Furthermore, “it was necessary to physically restrain him and have recourse to force” to obtain the necessary urine sample. 11.  The doctor on duty proceeded with the applicant’s catheterisation while the latter’s arms were handcuffed. Afterwards, the doctor cut the applicant’s shirt and took a blood sample. He also issued a medical report on the applicant’s injuries. 12.  On 22 April 2010 the applicant was fined 50,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 180 euros (EUR)) for the minor offence of failing to comply with lawful police measures. That decision was subsequently overturned, and the proceedings were discontinued by a decision of the Püspökladány District Court of 22 April 2011. The Püspökladány District Court established that the police measure could not be held to be lawful, since the medical intervention had been carried out without the applicant’s written consent, required under the Health Care Act. 13.  Furthermore, in a judgment of 15 November 2011 the Püspökladány District Court found the applicant guilty of disorderly conduct, drink-driving and violence against a representative of a public authority. He was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment. The applicant challenged the evidence obtained through the urine test, and the court found it established that he had consented to the use of the catheter, as evidenced by five or six witness testimonies, and he had only withdrawn his consent upon realising that the intervention was painful. The judgment stated that, irrespective of the result of urine test, it was clear that the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol at the material time, as observed by the police officers, the witnesses and the doctor on duty. On appeal, the applicant’s sentence was reduced to one year and nine months’ imprisonment suspended for five years by the Debrecen Regional Court. 14.  On 11 March 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers involved in the incident, alleging that they had interrogated him by subjecting him to ill-treatment – beating him, using handcuffs and leg restraints, and forcibly taking blood samples from him and urine samples by catheterisation. 15.  On 26 November 2010 the investigations division of the Debrecen public prosecutor’s office discontinued the criminal proceedings for lack of any conclusive evidence. As to the urinary catheterisation, relying on the witness testimonies of the doctor on duty, a nurse, a driver who was on duty at the medical service at the time and the police officers, the prosecutor’s office concluded that the applicant had voluntarily agreed to the sample being taken by catheterisation. Referring to an expert opinion produced by the Medical Expert Division of the Forensic Expert and Research Institute, the prosecutor’s office found that urinary catheterisation did not amount to a surgical intervention. In any event, the use of physical restraint had only been necessary as the applicant had become aggressive and tried to resist once the medical intervention had started. 16.  The applicant lodged a complaint against the decision, requesting that the investigation into the unlawful use of leg restraints and the catheterisation continue. By a decision of 10 January 2011 the Hajdú Bihar county chief public prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint, endorsing the findings of the first-instance authority. 17.  In a parallel procedure, on 16 March 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Board (“the Board”), the body responsible for inquiring into alleged violations of fundamental rights committed by the police, challenging the use of handcuffs and leg restraints, the fact that he had been held for questioning, his ill-treatment at the hands of the police officers, and the forcible taking of urine and blood samples. The Board inquired with the doctor on duty about the incident, who stated in his reply that the applicant had agreed to the insertion of a catheter before a number of witnesses, and that he had interpreted the fact that the applicant had removed his clothes as consent to the procedure. According to the doctor, the applicant had been cooperative and had only turned violent at a later stage. According to the facts established by the Board, since the applicant had been unable to produce the urine sample, the police officers had asked the doctor on duty to carry out the catheterisation. 18.  The Board commissioned an expert opinion from the chief physician of the Budapest Institute of Forensic Medicine, who stated in an opinion of 4 June 2010 that, although some medical institutions required written consent for catheterisation, this was not the policy of the majority of institutions. In his opinion, such a procedure was not general practice, and recourse to an “emergency” intervention was professionally unreasonable. In any event, according to professional guidelines, if a urine test could not be carried out, a blood test was sufficient. 19.  In an opinion of 4 August 2010 the Board found that the use of handcuffs had been legitimate and that the ill-treatment alleged could not be established. However, as regards the catheterisation and the use of leg restraints, the Board concluded that those measures had infringed the applicant’s right to dignity, physical integrity, health and a fair trial. It forwarded its opinion to the Commander of the National Police Service. 20.  Following the adoption of the Board’s opinion, the applicant’s complaint was examined by the Commander of the National Police Service under section 92(1) of Act no. XXXIV of 1994 on the Police (“the Police Act”), with a view to establishing whether the police measure had been unlawful. It was dismissed on 26 October 2010. The decision established that the applicant had informed the doctor on duty that he had been unable to produce a urine sample and that he would not drink water in order to be able to do it later. He had behaved aggressively and had been uncooperative, but had nonetheless agreed to the catheterisation before witnesses by loudly screaming “do the catheterisation”, and had undressed voluntarily. He had only been restrained to prevent him from causing injuries to himself or the doctor, once the procedure had started. Moreover, the forcible taking of a sample was justified in situations where there were grounds to believe that the driver of a vehicle was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 21.  The applicant sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that he had not been heard during the proceedings and the facts had been established solely on the basis of the testimonies of the police officers and the medical staff. He disputed the finding that he had voluntarily undressed for his catheterisation. He emphasised that he had submitted a medical report substantiating his allegations about the use of leg restraints, which had been disregarded by the Commander of the National Police Service. 22.  On 7 February 2012 the Budapest Regional Administrative and Labour Court dismissed his action. The court emphasised that, according to the medical expert opinion commissioned by the Board, there was no clear medical approach to catheterisation and the question of whether it was an invasive or non-invasive intervention, thus hospital practice differed in relation to the necessity of consent. If an examination was considered invasive, oral consent was not sufficient. In any case, the procedure could always be stopped. The medical expert also stated that, in comparison to a blood test, a urine test was not a precise method to establish whether a person was under the influence of drugs. Furthermore, catheterisation was a procedure that could be interrupted at any time. 23.  The court concluded that the procedure had been in compliance with the provisions of the Police Act setting out that a police officer could oblige a driver to provide a sample of breath, blood and urine for the purposes of a test. The court also indicated that the question as to whether consent was required for catheterisation, and whether the procedure should or should not have been carried out against the applicant’s will, was outside the scope of its examination. It had been up to the doctor and not the police officers to decide on the method by which to take a sample. The court also took note of several witness testimonies and concluded that the use of leg restraints could not be established in the applicant’s case. 24.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Kúria, arguing that the Commander of the National Police Service had failed to establish the facts of the case. In particular, the service had not commissioned a medical report capable of substantiating the use of leg restraints, had not heard him in person, and had drawn erroneous conclusions as regards his consent to the catheterisation. The applicant further submitted that the first-instance court had erred in classifying the medical examination, since it had been neither obligatory under the provisions of the Police Act, nor reasonable or proportionate according to medical standards. 25.  The Kúria upheld the first-instance judgment on 25 March 2014, endorsing its reasoning. The judgment was served on the applicant on 11 July 2014.