CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB217F55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC2E73220 { width:87.22%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s1BC47C52 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s73BEC33F { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2F0B4A65 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s12C0A550 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2B925554 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .s2B61098E { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f3f3f3 } Communicated on 11 June 2020 Published on 29 June 2020     THIRD SECTION Application no. 31975/19 Veronika KOVÁČOVÁ and Others against Slovakia lodged on 31 May 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application revolves around an allegation of ill-treatment in the course of a police operation on 16 April 2017 in a Roma community in Zborov in response to a disturbance of the peace stemming from a clash between two families living in that community. Complaints under Articles 3 (both the substantive and procedural limb), 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention include that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment has not been independent.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the applicants’ application to the Office of the Prosecutor General of 5 September 2018 appears to be still pending, can the applicants be considered as having exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to treatment at hands of State agents in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   In view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to its tactical and operational background, was the use of the force by the State agents to which the applicants have allegedly been exposed indispensable and 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)?   3.     Was the investigation of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, including but not limited to the criteria of independence (see the summary in Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015)?   In particular, has the independence of the investigation been ensured in view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to its institutional framework and practical organisation, seen with reference to the overriding purpose to ensure that the investigation be effective (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 225, 14 April 2015, in conjunction with Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 314, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   5.     In connection with the complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention about their alleged ill-treatment, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   6.     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 Article 3 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 alleged use of force by agents of the State against the applicants, which allegedly violated their rights under Article 3 of the Convention, racially neutral (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 alleged ill-treatment (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)?       APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Veronika KOVÁČOVÁ 1986 Slovak Zborov 2 Milan MIKO 1959 Slovak Zborov 3 Nikola MIKOVÁ 1991 Slovak Zborov