CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2025

.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 14 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33651/24 Patrik MIKO and Denis JANO against Slovakia lodged on 31 October 2024 communicated on 28 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an incident between the applicants (two men of Roma origin, the first applicant a minor at the time) and the police, which took place on 23 July 2019 in Milhosť and at a police station in Čaňa, two villages in eastern Slovakia. The incident occurred immediately prior to the events which form the subject matter of app. no. 29229/22 Kuruová and Horváthová v. Slovakia , already communicated to the Government. Following a conflict in a bar in Milhosť, the police was called and arrested the applicants. During the arrest and in the police car, the first applicant had to be restrained with the use of coercive measures. Official reports on the arrest do not indicate any wounds caused to the applicants. In the applicants’ submissions, the first applicant was slapped, beaten and spat on in the police car, during his arrest and on the way to the police station. After arrival the police station, both applicants were allegedly beaten and verbally abused, called “gypsies” and “morons”, and were told that as Roma, they did not have any rights. After their release the following day, a medical examination found contusions on head, face, left shoulder blade and back, contusion and sprain on the cervical spine, and contusions and abrasions on the wrists of the first applicant. It found contusions on the head and contusions with hematoma on the face of the second applicant. Following the applicants’ criminal complaint, an investigation was opened on suspicion of the police officers having committed the crime of abuse of official power. It was carried out by the eastern unit of the Inspection Service of the Ministry of the Interior, which has a seat in the same building as the police structure to which the intervening police patrol belonged. On 31   May 2021, the investigation was concluded, with a single action (slap on the face of the second applicant at the police station) being referred for disciplinary proceedings. The remaining allegations were not disposed of in the decision. The Public Prosecution Service dismissed the interlocutory appeal of the applicants, and their constitutional complaint was rejected on 23 May 2024 (case no. I. US 252/2024). The application raises issues under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 23   May 2024, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     During their arrest and detention at the police station, in particular considering the facts giving rise to the decision to refer the matter for disciplinary proceedings, have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Did the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities? If so, did they provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts so as to cast doubt on the account of events given by the applicants (see Bouyid v.   Belgium   [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83, ECHR 2015)?   3.     Can the applicants’ allegation of ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention be considered credible so as to engage the procedural protection under that provision (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 182, ECHR 2012, with further references)? If so, having regard to such protection (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into those allegations in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§ 114-23), including but not limited to the aspect of independence (see, mutatis mutandis , Mižigárová v. Slovakia , no. 74832/01, §§ 98-100, 14 December 2010; Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic , no. 23944/04, § 151-60, 16 February 2012, with further references; Kummer v. the Czech Republic , no. 32133/11, §§ 83-88, 25 July 2013; and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §   225, 14   April 2015)?   4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their Roma origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the procedural aspect of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities have before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in their alleged ill-treatment (see, a contrario , Adam v. Slovakia , no. 68066/12, § 94, 26 July 2016, with further references and, mutatis mutandis , Lakatošová and Lakatoš v.   Slovakia , no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018)? If so, did they take such steps?