CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mai 2023

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33603/22 Barbora BRHLOVÁ against Slovakia lodged on 1 July 2022 communicated on 15 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly excessive force used against the applicant by the police intervention in her family house in order to arrest her father. During the police intervention, the applicant suffered injuries necessitating her treatment in hospital. The applicant’s criminal complaint regarding the incident was successively rejected by police and prosecution which concluded that there was no evidence of an offence having been committed. On 30 March 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected her constitutional complaint. According to her, the State did not conduct an effective investigation which was the only legal means to clarify her allegations of the unlawful entry into her family house. The applicant relies on Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Kučera v. Slovakia , no. 48666/99, §§ 117-24, 17 July 2007)? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were the procedural safeguards laid down in the Police Corps Act 1993 (sections 67 and 68) and in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article   103) complied with in the present case?   2.     Given the procedural protection of the right to respect for home (see H.M. v. Turkey , no. 34494/97, §§ 25-30, 8 August 2006), did the proceedings carried out into the applicant’s criminal complaint meet the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention?