CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 July 2025   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 30478/24 and 2634/25 Adam LUČANSKÝ against Slovakia lodged on 18 October 2024 and 22 January 2025 respectively communicated on 25 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications have been introduced by the son of the late Mr   Milan Lučanský, a police officer who between 2018 and 2020 held the post of the President of Police Corps of Slovakia. It concerns incidents that took place in late 2020 when the applicant’s father was detained on remand, which ended with his death, and the ensuing response of the State. In particular, following the bringing of charges of accepting bribes against Mr Lučanský Sr., on 6 December 2020 he was remanded pending trial, with a view to preventing him from interfering with the course of justice and continuing with criminal activities. The initial (from 7 to 9 December 2020) and final (from 22 to 29 December 2020) stage of his detention took place in the detention facility in Prešov, where he was kept in three different cells, always alone. In between these stages, he was hospitalised in Ružomberok (from 9   to 11 December 2020) and Trenčín (from 11 to 22 December 2020). There is no indication that, at the time when his liberty was restricted, Mr   Lučanský Sr. would have had any injuries. On 9 December 2020, when he was held in cell no. 131 in the Prešov facility, it was established that Mr Lučanský Sr. had an injury on his right eye. In the ensuing investigation, it was accepted that this injury came about in that Mr Lučanský Sr. had tripped over a slipper and had hit his eye on the edge of the bed in his cell. The applicant questions that finding. The injury was initially treated at hospital in Prešov and eventually necessitated a   surgery that took place at hospital in Ružomberok. On 10 December 2020, while at hospital in Ružomberok, Mr Lučanský Sr. hit the back of his head. The ensuing investigation established that this incident took place at the hospital and consisted of Mr Lučanský Sr. throwing himself into a wheelchair in which he had been asked to sit, while the attending nurse had been unable to hold the wheelchair still, and Mr   Lučanský   Sr. ultimately tripping over and hitting his head on the ground. The information available suggests that the incident took place shortly after Mr   Lučanský Sr. had had his surgery and that, at that time, he was restrained by a   device consisting of handcuffs attached to a belt. The applicant questions some of these findings. On 29 December 2020, at 4:39 p.m., Mr Lučanský Sr. was found lying motionless on the lower level of a bunk bed in his cell no. 114 in the Prešov facility, with a sweatshirt tied around his neck and attached to the construction of the higher level of the bed. He was rushed to hospital, where he died the   following day. The investigation concluded that his death had been the result of a suicide. The investigation focused on four aspects: (i) the possibility of the incidents of 9 and 10 December 2020 being an assault by one or more prison guards unknown, (ii) the possibility of a failure by one or more unknown prison guards to take precautions adequate to the condition of Mr   Lučanský   Sr. with a view to protecting his safety, (iii) the possibility of the incident of 29   December 2020 having been an assault by one or more unknown prison guards, and (iv) the possibility that one or more unknown prison guards had failed in their duty to check on Mr Lučanský Sr. in his cell on 29   December   2020 as commanded by the applicable regulations (at   irregular intervals at least once every 30 minutes) with a view to ensuring his safety. The investigation was carried out by the Inspection Service of the Police Corps in two rounds, both of which ended with the termination of the proceedings as no offence had been established. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged both decisions by an interlocutory appeal to the Prešov Regional Office of the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) and he further pursued his rights by complaints to the Constitutional Court. In both instances, the Constitutional Court (decisions of 18 June and 19 September 2024, case   nos. II. ÚS 324/24 and III. ÚS 475/24, served on the applicant on 12   July   and 7   October 2024, respectively) noted that the applicant had in parallel also sought a review of the decisions of the Regional Office of the PPS by the Prosecutor General, and that such reviews had in fact already taken place (on 9 March 2023 the Prosecutor General had ordered what became the second round of the investigation and on 28 April 2024 he had concurred with the outcome of the latter). In such circumstances, the principle of subsidiarity prevented the Constitutional Court from examining the   involvement of the lower levels of the PPS. In that regard, it is to be noted that, formally speaking, the decision to terminate the proceedings in the first round of investigation concerned aspects (i), (iii) and (iv) as mentioned above, while the decision to do so in the second round concerned aspect (ii). Nevertheless, in its decision in the second round (dated 9 February 2024) the   Regional Office of the PPS noted specifically that the investigation as   a   whole had concerned all the relevant aspects, including the course and conditions of the detention of Mr Lučanský Sr., and that that decision complemented its decision taken in the first round (dated 24   November   2022). Publicly available resources and (to some extent) also the content of the case file suggest that the incidents underlying the present applications have also been subject of investigation by a special commission established under the auspices of the Minister of Justice and that some further investigative activity in connection with them is still ongoing. While the findings of the said commission appear generally consistent with the findings of the above investigation, it also considered that the use of the restraining device on Mr   Lučanský Sr. during the incident of 10 December 2020 had been disproportionate, in particular in view of the fact that he had been in a condition of having had his eye surgery shortly before. It also found that keeping Mr   Lučanský Sr. in cell alone and without “full-fledged social contact” had been “problematic in relation to international standards”. However, according to the special commission, in view of the limited duration of his detention, this had not entailed a violation of his human rights and fundamental freedoms. The applications raise issues under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in connection with: -     the conditions of the detention of Mr Lučanský Sr. (kept alone in cell, no telephone contact with family, correspondence with family delayed by inspections to a point of arriving only after his death, adequacy of health care, use of handcuffs and other restraining devices, and being confined to a cell 23 hours a day); -     the State’s substantive obligation to protect the right to life of Mr   Lučanský Sr. from self-harm (taking into account also but not only his mental condition at the relevant time and the conditions of his detention); -     the effectiveness of the investigation into the incidents occurring during his detention and into his death (including as regards the State’s discharge of its substantive obligation to protect his life). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, but not only, in view of -   the scope of the examination of the case in the respective rounds of investigation, -   the actuality, as opposed to a   mere possibility (for contrast see paragraph 10 of constitutional judgment of 29 June 2021 in a case no. III. ÚS 98/2021), of the subsequent review by the Prosecutor General, in parallel with the Constitutional Court, and -   the sequence of the decisions of the Prosecutor General and the Constitutional Court (from the perspective of the two-month time-limit for bringing a constitutional complaint), was a new complaint to the Constitutional Court, to be lodged after the intervention by the Prosecutor General, an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision?   In view of the publicly available information about further investigative efforts taking place in this case, and their scope, are the applications premature?   2.     Has the right to life of the applicant’s father, Mr Lučanský Sr., ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In   particular, have the domestic authorities fulfilled their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect his health and well-being and/or   to take reasonable measures to protect him from harming himself while in detention (see Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic , no.   23944/04, § 109, 16 February 2012)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   4.     In view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to the conditions of his detention and the manner of his treatment by the prison authorities, has the applicant’s father, Mr Lučanský Sr., been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   5.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   In addition to other relevant documents, the parties be requested to   provide the Court with relevant documentation concerning the applicant’s first application to the Prosecutor General, resulting in the latter’s review of the case on 9 March 2023.