CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 3 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29554/17 Kálmán BÓDI and others against Hungary lodged on 7 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly inadequate investigation into an assault carried out by members of a paramilitary organisation to the detriment of the applicants, persons of Roma origin. On 12 December 2016 the Eger District Public Prosecutor’s Office ultimately dismissed the applicants’ complaint about the suspension of the investigation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the States’ positive obligation under Article   3 to provide procedural protection from ill-treatment even when inflicted by private persons, was the investigation adequate for the purposes of Article   3 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14, also with regard to exploring the potential racist motives of the assault (see Balázs v.   Hungary , no.   15529/12, §§ 47 to   76, 20 October 2015; Beganović v.   Croatia , no.   46423/06, § 71, 25 June 2009; and Abdu v. Bulgaria , no.   26827/08, §   29, 11   March 2014)?