CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 8 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24405/17 Krisztina KEVEI against Hungary lodged on 23 March 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suicide of the applicant’s husband, a person with known psychiatric issues, in police detention and the ensuing investigation into the incident, which was allegedly inadequate. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Have the authorities adequately discharged their obligation of substantive protection of the right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, in the case of the applicant’s husband? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention (see Trapeznikova and   Others v. Russia , no. 45115/09, 1 December 2016; Çoşelav v. Turkey , no.   1413/07, 9 October 2012; Eremiášová and Pechová v.   the   Czech Republic , no. 23944/04, 16 February 2012)?