CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2024

.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 16 September 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7411/24 Renata KARIČKOVÁ against the Czech Republic lodged on 7 March 2024 communicated on 28 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a light injury (contusion of tibia) sustained by the applicant, who is of Roma origin, during a conflict between a group of tourists, later identified as members of a football ultras group (hereinafter “ultras members”), and members of Roma community on 23 July 2021. The applicant was allegedly hit in her shin by a hard object resembling a piece of brick thrown by an ultras member. The applicant’s criminal complaint was set aside by the police in 2022. This decision was subsequently upheld by two levels of prosecution authorities. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded (no. II. ÚS 3314/22). It held that (i)   the conflict had been situational and apparently provoked by one of the members of the Roma community, (ii)   the authorities had duly investigated possible racist motivation behind the conflict and concluded that, in the light of all available evidence, it could not be established, (iii)   racist insults had been used by both sides to the conflict, and (iv)   the gravity of the applicant’s injury did not warrant criminal prosecution of any person and did not engage her right to effective investigation. Relying on Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14, the applicant complains that the domestic authorities violated her right to effective investigation. She also asserts that they failed to duly consider and respond to the fact that the attack on her had been, at least partly, racially motivated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, even if such treatment is administered by private individuals, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention ( see M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria , no.   40020/03, § 100, 31 July 2012)?   2.     Have the authorities taken all reasonable steps to investigate any possible racist motivation behind the alleged attack on the applicant, as required by Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 ( see Abdu v. Bulgaria , no. 26827/08, §§ 44-46, 11 March 2014, and Balázs v.   Hungary , no.   15529/12, §§ 47 to   76, 20 October 2015 )?