CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }   Communicated on 6 September 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45322/17 M.B. and Others against Slovakia lodged on 15 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations that the three applicants, minor at the material time, were mistreated by a police officer in a police car on 21   March 2009 between their arrest on the suspicion of involvement in a robbery and their arrival at a police station, that the ensuing investigation into these allegations was inadequate, that they had no effective remedy in that respect, and that both their ill-treatment and lack of an adequate investigation into it were the result of discrimination against them on account of their Roma origin. It involves questions under Articles 3, 13 and   14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     With regard to their allegations concerning the treatment they were exposed to in the police car, have the applicants been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Can the applicants’ claim that in the police car they were exposed to treatment incompatible with 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, was the investigation by the domestic authorities into those allegations in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of his Roma origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention?   In particular, but not only, did the domestic authorities have before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their obligation to investigate on their own initiative possible racist motives on the part of the officers involved (see, a contrario , Adam v. Slovakia , no. 68066/12, §   94, 26 July 2016, with further references)? If so, did they?           M. B. was born in 1992     I. K. was born in 1995     T. Ž. was born in 1993   They are all Slovak nationals live in Košice and are represented by Ms   V.   Durbáková.