SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ZIGMANTAVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA
(Application no. 57967/22)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
12 May 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zigmantavičius v. Lithuania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 57967/22) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 December 2022 by a Lithuanian national, Mr Danis Zigmantavičius (“the applicant”), who was born in 2001, lives in Jonava and was represented by Mr V. Jaroščenka, a lawyer practising in Jonava;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr R. Dzikovič;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 7 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by a police officer, using an electroshock device, and the effectiveness of the domestic authorities’ investigation into the matter. ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF THE APPLICANT
2. On 8 April 2022, at around 10 p.m., the Jonava police were notified by the applicant’s neighbour that noise possibly consistent with domestic violence was coming from the applicant’s flat. Two police officers arrived at the scene. 3. The video recordings captured by the police officers’ body cameras show that the stairwell had been in darkness and the police officers had been using torches, when, at around 10.10 p.m., the applicant opened the door of his flat, began yelling at the officers and tried to kick and punch them; he then locked himself back in the flat. At around 10.20 p.m. two more officers arrived. Their colleagues informed them that the applicant had “consumed something, but it was unclear what”. At that time, the light was on in the stairwell. At around 10.21 p.m. the applicant opened the door slightly and closed it again. Officer G.P. called to the applicant to come out into the stairwell. During that time, the police officers were pointing electroshock devices at the door of the flat. The other three police officers were standing at the bottom of the flight of stairs leading up the applicant’s flat, while G.P. himself was standing halfway up the stairs. Approximately six seconds after G.P. had called to the applicant (at around 10.21 p.m.), the applicant suddenly emerged from the flat. As the applicant was closing the door behind him, G.P., who had started to retreat and was now at the bottom of the flight of stairs, fired an electroshock device once at him. The applicant fell down the stairs and hit his head. The police handcuffed him and summoned an ambulance, which took him to hospital. 4. The applicant’s medical file indicated that at the time of the events at issue the applicant had been drunk. As a result of hitting his head on the cement stairs, he had sustained a cerebral contusion and a fracture of the skull vault, and had suffered a traumatic haemorrhage. PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION
5. In April 2022 the applicant’s mother asked the relevant authorities to open a pre-trial investigation into her son’s ill-treatment by the police. 6. In his official report, drawn up on 9 April 2022, Officer G.P. indicated, in particular, that when the applicant came out of his flat and suddenly approached the officers, the officers had been unable to see whether he was carrying anything. Moreover, the applicant had previously acted in an aggressive and unpredictable manner and had attacked the officers; thus, it had not been possible to use another means of restraint. 7. Officer M.P. presented a similar account. 8. When questioned by the police, the applicant stated that he had been drinking prior to the incident and that, because of his inebriated state, he could not remember the circumstances surrounding the incident. He said that he had spent eleven days in hospital as a result of his injuries. 9. On 4 May 2022 the chief investigating officer of the Kaunas Regional Division of the Immunity Board of the Police Department refused to open a pre-trial investigation, on the grounds that there was no evidence that a criminal offence had been committed. Having examined the official reports submitted by the police officers and the video recordings from their body cameras, the investigating officer established that at the relevant time the stairwell had been in darkness; the officers had been using torches, and the resulting limited visibility had made it difficult for them to assess whether the applicant had been carrying “any prohibited items”. When the applicant had opened the door of his flat for the first time, he had acted aggressively towards the officers and had tried to attack them physically. When he had opened the door for the second time, Officer G.P. had been obliged to defend himself quickly by using an electroshock device, in order to avoid a possible repetition of the applicant’s aggressive conduct; G.P. had not had time to warn the applicant in advance about the possible use of the electroshock device. Moreover, there had been only a short distance between the applicant and G.P. and any delay in taking action would have endangered the police officer himself. Accordingly, the officer’s actions had been lawful, necessary and proportionate. Lastly, the police officers had not intended to injure the applicant. 10. The applicant’s mother appealed against that decision. On 27 May 2022 her appeal was dismissed by the prosecutor, who held that the police officers had acted in accordance with the law, since the applicant had himself provoked the use of the electroshock device by his clearly unlawful actions. Moreover, his injuries had been sustained accidentally, when he had fallen down the stairs while drunk. Further appeals lodged by the applicant’s mother were dismissed by the pre‑trial investigation judge on 17 June 2022 and the Kaunas Regional Court on 3 August 2022. The latter decision was final. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT
11. In April 2022 a pre-trial investigation was opened against the applicant on suspicion of resisting the lawful orders of police officers. The applicant admitted his guilt and on 5 December 2022 the Kaunas District Court convicted him of that criminal offence. THE APPLICANT’S COMPLAINT
12. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into his allegations had not been effective.

Outcome for Article 3: no_violation