CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 30 January 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 48587/21 B.B. against Slovakia lodged on 27 September 2021 communicated on 13 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the Slovakian authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the suspicion of the offence of human trafficking allegedly committed against the applicant. The Slovakian authorities characterised the offence and found it established as procuring (in Slovakia) prostitution (taking place in the United Kingdom). In the applicant’s submission, the Slovakian authorities disregarded evidence concerning her vulnerable status (brought up in a foster home, at the time of the offence homeless and with no means of subsistence, intellectual capacity close to light retardation) and failed properly to inform her of her rights as a victim in criminal proceedings. She also alleges that they unnecessarily made her testify repeatedly about traumatising events and put to her impertinent questions, as well as made her appear in court despite her bad health condition. The complaints fall to be examined under Articles 4 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of all the circumstances, including the course and length of the proceedings before the ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court, has there been a violation of the State’s procedural obligations under Article 4 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation of the alleged offence of human trafficking in this case (see S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no.   60561/14, §§   313-318, 25 June 2020)? 2.     In view of all the circumstances, including the course of the domestic proceedings, has there been a violation of the State’s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s right to respect for her private life. In particular, have the domestic authorities succeed in striking a fair balance between the applicant’s personal integrity and the rights of the defence (see mutatis mutandis , Y. v. Slovenia , no. 41107/10, §§ 103-106, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?