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. 20649/18 R.R. and R.D. against Slovakia lodged on 25 April 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns (i) ill-treatment that the applicants, who are of Roma origin, were allegedly exposed to on 19 June 2013 during a large ‑ scale police operation in their community and their subsequent transfer to and detention at the local police station in in Moldava nad Bodvou, (ii) the ensuing investigation into those allegations, conducted by the Inspection Service of the Ministry of the Interior under the supervision of the Public Prosecution Service, (iii) alleged discrimination in that respect on account of their ethnic origin, as well as (iv) alleged lack of an effective remedy. Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention are invoked. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In connection with the events of 19 June 2013, have the applicants been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   Should the applicants have been exposed to the use of force by agents of the State in connection with the operation, in view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to its tactical and operational background, 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, can the applicants’ assertions in relation to any treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention they were exposed to in connection with the operation of 19 June 2013 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.   2391/99, §§ 334-341, ECHR 2007 ‑ II)?   3.     In connection with the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy, 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 their Roma origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in connection with their complaints under Articles 3 and   13 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 Article 3 of the Convention racially natural (see Stoica v. Romania , no. 42722/02, §§   125 ‑ 132, 4 March 2008)?   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)?   The applicants are both Slovak nationals, live in Moldava nad Bodvou and is represented by Ms V. Durbáková, a lawyer practicing in Košice.