CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2AD52C60 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:5.26pt; font-family:Arial } .s643F3FEB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2AEAE5AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2C75EAAA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA50A48B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sE2C9F7F2 { width:9.96pt; display:inline-block } .s20E4564A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } Published on 1 December 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6187/25 SLOVAKIA against Belgium lodged on 27 February 2025 communicated on 14 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of the death of Mr J.C., a Slovak national, following the use of physical restraint by the Belgian police during his detention in a cell at Brussels-Charleroi Airport, where he had been arrested for allegedly boarding an aeroplane without identity documents, and of the effectiveness of the ensuing investigation in Belgium. The applicant Government rely on Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention and on Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES As regards the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: Have the available domestic remedies been exhausted? If so, has the application been lodged within the time-limit established by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? Was Mr J.C.’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (among other authorities, Tekın and Arslan v.   Belgium , no. 37795/13, §§ 82-110, 5 September 2017)? In particular: (a)   Did Mr J.C.’s death result from the use of force which was “no more than absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article 2 §   2 of the Convention (for instance, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 98, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII; Tekın and Arslan , cited above, § 82), particularly in the light of the Court’s case-law concerning the use of the “prone restraint” (recently, T.V. v.   Croatia , no. 47909/19, §   55, 11   June 2024, with the authorities cited)?   (b)   Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect the life of Mr J.C., a person under their control and thus in a vulnerable position (recently, Kalkan v. Denmark , no.   51781/22, §   95, 27 May 2025)? In particular, was an appropriate legal and administrative framework in place, and were the law-enforcement officials, including all police officers involved in the events of 23-24 February 2018, trained in such a manner as to ensure that they had a high level of competence and to prevent any treatment that ran contrary to Article 2 of the Convention ( Tekın and Arslan , cited above, §§   92-98; Kalkan , cited above, §§ 96 and 98-129)?   (c)   In the light of the applicant Government’s allegations that Mr   J.C. showed signs of mental disorder, including self-harming behaviour, was he provided with adequate medical assistance capable of averting a fatal outcome ( for instance, Saoud v. France , no.   9375/02, §   98, 9   October 2007; Tekın and Arslan , cited above, §   85; T.V. v. Croatia , cited above, § 49)? Was Mr J.C. subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (for instance, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, ECHR 2015)? Did the investigation by the domestic authorities comply with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Salman [GC], cited above, § 104; Armani Da Silva v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 233-34, ECHR 2016, with further references)? The respondent Government are invited to submit a copy of the entire file of the investigation into the circumstances of Mr J.C.’s death. Was there a violation of Article 14, in conjunction with Articles 2 and   3 of the Convention (for instance, Nachova and Others v.   Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 144-68, ECHR   2005-VII; Turan Cakir v. Belgium , no.   44256/06, §§ 77-82, 10   March 2009). In particular, were there any racist motives underlying Mr J.C.’s treatment and death, and, if so, were any such motives properly investigated? B.   As regards the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention: 1.   Have the admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention been complied with in respect of the above-mentioned complaint? In particular, have the available domestic remedies been exhausted? If so, has the application been lodged within the time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.   Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged leaks to the media of materials of the file of the investigation into Mr J.C.’s death? In particular, were the relevant authorities directly responsible for such leaks? Alternatively, did they comply with their relevant positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention ( M.D. and Others v. Spain , no.   36584/17, §§   65-72, 28   June 2022; Y.G. v. Russia , no. 8647/12, §§ 46-53, 30 August 2022)?