CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 2024

.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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 November 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5887/23 Igor SAMKO and Jakub TAMÁŠ against Slovakia lodged on 25 January 2023 communicated on 6 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are of Roma origin. The first-instance court sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment for causing serious bodily harm, vandalism, and property damage. The appellate court overturned the judgment and sentenced the applicants to seven years’ imprisonment on account of the balance between the extenuating and the aggravating circumstances and due to the requirements of general deterrence. In this regard the appellate court stated: “... it is known for this ethnic group that in road accidents caused by anybody, in particular when in their community, where the neighbours or kin of the injured party are present, a driver of a vehicle cannot stop to provide first aid to those injured without risking danger to his life and health, as it was in this case, because the neighbours or kin of the injured party react aggressively and attack all passing vehicles regardless of who caused the accident or who is actually injured... Every sentence imposed for such and similar conduct, as committed by the applicants, must serve as a warning, although when sober the applicants allegedly behave decently and there are no reprimands as to their behaviour by their neighbours, the municipality, at their domicile or workplace etc.” The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision. While it considered the impugned statement “unlucky” it found that it had been meant to underline the need for general deterrence in relation to the specific conduct. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint about the unfair and discriminatory sentence as manifestly ill-founded (I. ÚS 628/2022). It stated that the applicants had failed to prove the difference in treatment compared to perpetrators of the same crimes who were not of Roma origin and the impugned remarks should be understood within the notion of general deterrence. Moreover, the applicants’ sentence was lower than mid-range for the crimes concerned and the courts duly considered all extenuating factors. The applicants complain that they were given a more severe sentence on account of their ethnic origin and that the appellate court lacked impartiality. They complain under Article 14 of the Convention read together with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given the statements about the applicants’ ethnic origin made by the appellate court in support of the imposition of a higher sentence, have the applicants suffered discrimination on account of their ethnic origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic authorities given reasonable and objective justification for the alleged difference in treatment (see Paraskeva Todorova v. Bulgaria , no. 37193/07, § 36, 25 March 2010, and mutatis mutandis Aleksandr Aleksandrov v. Russia , no. 14431/06, §§ 21-30, 27   March 2018)?   2.     Can the appellate court which heard the applicants’ case be considered impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( see Ilnseher v.   Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 288-89, 4 December 2018)?