CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 février 2026

.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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sCBBE263B { height:29.8pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E79D88E { height:66.95pt } .s5260776 { height:53.5pt } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 9 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20475/23 Dávid KRÁTKY against Slovakia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 20 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are prisoners. The applications nos. 20475/23 and 20477/23 concern the use of a special restraining device consisting of handcuffs and leg-cuffs connected by a chain that is attached to a belt   (an “SRD”) during court hearings. The application no. 18056/23 concerns the use of the SRD together with dark glasses and headphones during transfers between prisons.   Application nos. 20475/23 and 20477/23:   On 7 July 2021 the applicants (Dávid and Dominik Krátky) attended a court hearing in their criminal case. Following a private consultation with the Chief of the Prison Escort (“CPE”), the presiding judge ordered to keep them restrained by the SRD. On 2 March 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed their constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded noting that (i)   the presiding judge had consulted the CPE before having ordered the measure, (ii) except for the applicant’s subjective allegations of ‘fear, subjugation and anxiety’, it had not transpired that they had been by any means limited in exercising their defence rights effectively, and (iii)   neither the applicants, nor their lawyer had contended that the restraining measures had affected them physically or mentally (I. ÚS 129/2023). The applicant (Dávid Krátky) was additionally restrained by the SRD during a civil court hearing on 24 January 2023. On 16 March 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint as manifestly ill-founded noting that the applicant was serving a life sentence, which in itself gives rise to concerns about a possible inclination toward unlawful conduct, particularly outside the prison facility. Moreover, given his young age it was unlikely that the impugned measure caused him any physical or mental suffering. The court hearing lasted around 50 minutes, and his right hand was released approximately in the middle of the hearing (III. ÚS 144/2023).   Application no. 18056/23:   On 2 May 2022 the applicant (Ján Tatič) was transferred to Košice prison during which he was restrained by the SRD and additionally wore dark glasses and headphones. On 16 March 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed his constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded in relation to the transfer of 2 May 2022 noting that the use of the restraining measures was based on a decision of the prison governor and took into account factors such as the nature of the crime, the applicant’s physical aptitude, dangerousness etc. The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint about the routine use of the restraining measures for lack of formal requirements reproaching the applicant for not lodging a complaint with the Public Prosecution Service (I.   ÚS 153/2023). Invoking Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the use of the restraining measures was not justified by any objective reasons and was disproportionate, as they had never attempted to escape and shown no aggressive behaviour. The applicant in application no. 18056/23 also complains that the restraining measures have been routinely used during every transfer outside of prison. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decisions, in particular the applicants’ specific personalities and no discernible or alleged health related repercussions, were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the use of the SRD during the court hearings on 7 July 2021 and on 24   January 2023 (applications nos. 20475/23 and 20477/23) and on account of the use of the SRD, the dark glasses and the headphones during the transfers outside of prison (application no. 18056/23) (see Raninen v.   Finland , 16 December 1997, §§ 55-56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; and A.T.   v.   Estonia , no. 23183/15, § 61, 13   November 2018)?   2.     Alternatively, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, can the use of the restraining measures be considered necessary in light of the actual security needs and the risks posed by the applicants (see A.T. v.   Estonia , cited above, § 63)?   3.     As regards the complaint about the routine use of the SRD, dark glasses and headphones during every transfer outside of prison and having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decision on this matter (I. ÚS 153/2023), has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see Ribár v. Slovakia , no. 56545/21, §   71, 12 December 2024)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 20475/23 Krátky v. Slovakia 26/04/2023 Dávid KRÁTKY 1991 Leopoldov Slovak Dominik KRÁTKY 2. 20477/23 Krátky v. Slovakia 04/05/2023 Dávid KRÁTKY 1991 Leopoldov Slovak Dominik KRÁTKY 1991 Bratislava Slovak Dominik KRÁTKY 3. 18056/23 Tatič v. Slovakia 28/04/2023 Ján TATIČ 1974 Leopoldov Slovak