CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 10 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 215/19 Biplab BASU against Germany lodged on 19 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the question whether allegations of racial profiling were investigated sufficiently. The applicant, a German national, is of Indian origin. On a train, he was subjected to an identity control by the German police. The applicant complained that at the heart of the identity control had been reasons of skin colour, which amounted to a discrimination against him. The Dresden Administrative Court rejected the complaint as inadmissible. It held that the complaint did not justify retroactive judicial review, since the applicant had not relied on a sufficiently grave interference with his human rights. Further appeals were to no avail. The applicant invoked Articles 14 and Article 13 and maintained that he had been, in interference with his private life as protected under Article   8   §   1 of the Convention, subjected to measures, which amounted to racial profiling, and that he had, in the circumstances of the case, no effective remedy at his disposal. Moreover, the applicant invoked Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and claimed that the identity control had been based on provisions which were incompatible with EU-law.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, do the circumstances of the case give rise to an obligation to investigate the allegation of racial profiling and, if so, has that obligation been complied with?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?