CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size: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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sC6B6F7B3 { width:150.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s3D3AABB9 { width:59.74%; margin-left:74.05pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sE8168E43 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD1813A56 { width:48.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDCD193E2 { width:38.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC8EE2B33 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2B244F94 { width:48.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F33CF56 { width:38.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 14099/18 M.H. and Others against Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3   May   2022 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay, President,   Alena Poláčková,   Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 March 2018, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all Slovak nationals residing in Moldava nad Bodvou. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová. Relying on Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, the applicants raised a number of complaints linked to a police operation that had taken place on 19 June 2013 in Moldava nad Bodvou and the ensuing investigation into allegations of abuse of authority, ill‑treatment and discrimination by the officers involved, during the operation itself and later at a police station. On 29 and 31 March 2022 the Court received friendly-settlement declarations signed by the parties, which included the following text: “The parties note that at its meeting of 23 June 2021 the Government of the Slovak Republic adopted Resolution no. 367, by means of which it apologised, inter alia , ‘for the manner in which armed units of the State intervened in Moldava nad Bodvou in the year of 2013’ and ‘for the injustice and suffering inflicted on the victims and their families by the protracted search for the truth’. On the same day, the Office of the Government issued a press release stating that ‘the apology is not only a human gesture in relation to the victims, but also means a commitment for the State to avoid similar failures in the future. The apology is likewise a signal that law-enforcement authorities are sincerely interested in regaining the trust of the civil society.’ The parties also note that the present application raises similar questions as the case of R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia (no. 20649/18), in which the Court’s judgment of 1   September 2020 is being implemented. Any general measures due in that implementation are also relevant to the facts underlying the present application.” Furthermore, under the said declarations, the applicants agreed to   waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay them ex gratia jointly 110,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. This amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. THE LAW The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 June 2022.     Liv Tigerstedt   Péter Paczolay   Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth 1. M. H. 1983 2. L. H. 1978 3. L. H. 1997 4. Ľ. H. 1992 5. L. H. 1995 6. V. H. 1955 7. J. H. 1986 8. Š. M. 1990