CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 }   Communicated on 17 September 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14099/18 M.H. and Others against Slovakia lodged on 19 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns a police operation that took place on 19   June 2013 in a Roma community in Moldava nad Bodvou and the ensuing investigation, conducted by the Inspection Service of the Ministry of the Interior under the supervision of the Public Prosecution Service, into allegations of abuse of authority, ill ‑ treatment and discrimination by the officers involved, during the operation itself and later at a police station. The core allegations are that the operation was heavy-handed and repressive rather than investigative, involved physical abuse and unlawful entry into homes, and that there was no effective investigation into it, giving rise to an alleged violation of the applicants’ rights under Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In connection with the events of 19 June 2013 at Budulovská street and the local police station in Moldava nad Bodvou, have the applicants been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   In view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to the Constitutional Court’s finding in its decision of 1 August 2017 that some of the violations alleged before the Constitutional Court had not been specified with reference to any concrete facts concerning the respective applicants, what specific facts in relation to the person and home of the respective applicants constituted that treatment? What evidence is there to establish those facts? How exactly have the applicants asserted their rights in that respect? Have they exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   Should the applicants have been exposed to the use of force by agents of the State in the course of the police operation, in view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to the tactical and operational background of the operation, was that force excessive in breach of Article 3 (see, for example, Samüt Karabulut v. Turkey , no. 16999/04, §§ 42-44, 27   January 2009; Rehbock v. Slovenia , no. 29462/95, §§ 68‑78, ECHR   2000 ‑ XII, and Altay v. Turkey , no. 22279/93, § 54, 22 May 2001; and, mutatis mutandis , Cestaro v. Italy , no. 6884/11, §§ 177-190, 7 April 2015)?   2.     In view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to the Constitutional Court’s finding in its decision of 1 August 2017 that such was not the case, can the applicants’ assertions in relation to any treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention they were exposed to on 19 June 2013 at Budulovská street and at the local police station in Moldava nad Bodvou be considered credible to engage the procedural protection under that provision (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR   2000 ‑ IV)?   If so, was the investigation by the domestic authorities into those assertions in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, including but not limited to the criteria of promptness, reasonable expeditiousness, and independence (see the summary in Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015)?   Has the independence of the investigation been ensured in view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to its institutional framework (see Kummer v. the Czech Republic , no.   32133/11, §§ 83 et seq., 25 July 2013) and practical organisation (see, mutatis mutandis , Ramsahai and Others v.   the Netherlands [GC], no.   52391/99, §§ 334-341, ECHR 2007 ‑ II)?   3.     In connection with the actions of the police on 19 June 2013 at Budulovská street and the ensuing investigation into their actions, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? What specific facts constituted that interference? What evidence is there to establish those facts? How exactly have the applicants asserted their rights in that respect? Have they exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   If there has been such interference, has it been “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of one of the aims permitted under paragraph 2 of that Article?   4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their Roma origin, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention, in connection with their complaints under Articles 3 and   8 of the Convention?   Taking into account the distribution of the burden of proof with regard to the specific facts of the present case, was the treatment the applicants were allegedly exposed to in violation of their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention on 19 June 2013 at Budulovská street and at the local police station in Moldava nad Bodvou racially neutral (see Stoica v. Romania , no.   42722/02, §§ 125-132, 4 March 2008)? In connection with the applicants’ claim that the investigation in question was marked by antigypsyism, was the investigation itself racially neutral (see Stoica , cited above, § 128)?   Can the authorities be said to have had before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their obligation to investigate on their own initiative possible racist motives behind the actions of the police on 19 June 2013 (see, for the applicable principles, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 163-66, ECHR 2005 VII, and, for their application, Ciorcan and Others v. Romania , nos. 29414/09 and   44841/09, § 164, 27 January 2015 and, a contrario , Adam v. Slovakia , no.   68066/12, § 94, 26 July 2016)? If so, have the authorities properly investigated that aspect of the case (see Stoica , cited above, §§ 119-124)?   5.     In connection with their claim that the investigation into the treatment they were exposed to on 19 June 2013 was not independent, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about that treatment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS The Government are requested to provide the Court with copies of all relevant documentation concerning the planning and course of the police operation on 19 June 2013 at Budulovská street and concerning the applicant’s subsequent detention at the local police station in Moldava nad Bodvou.   The applicants are eight Slovak nationals, live in Moldava nad Bodvou and are represented by the European Roma Rights Centre of Budapest (Hungary).