T.K. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

 
Communicated on 28 May 2019
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 57085/18
T.K. and Others
against Slovakia
lodged on 28 November 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns (i) ill-treatment by State agents that the applicants, who are of Roma origin, were allegedly exposed to on 2 April 2015 during a police operation in their community in Vrbnica, (ii) the ensuing investigation into those allegations, (iii) alleged discrimination in that respect on account of their ethnic origin, as well as (iv) alleged lack of an effective remedy. Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention are invoked.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1.  Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
 
In particular, but not only:
 
Has an appeal been brought by the Public Prosecution Service against the judgment of the Michalovce District Court of 11 February 2019 on the bill of indictment of 30 October 2017? If so, and in view of the object and scope of the proceedings in that matter, is the application not premature?
 
In view of the Constitutional Court’s observation (see page 30 of its decision of 18 January 2018) that there had been unlawful actions committed [understood as actions on the part of the police officers intervening on 2 April 2015], is an action for damages under the State Liability Act (Law no. 514/2003 Coll., as amended) an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
 
In their complaint to the Constitutional Court dated 13 March 2017 (see in particular pages 17 and 18), can the applicants be understood as raising before it the complaints now made before the Court of an alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with (i) the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention and (ii) Article 13 of the Convention?
 
2.  In connection with the police operation of 2 April 2015 in Vrbnica, have the applicants been subjected to treatment at hands of State agents in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
 
In view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to its tactical and operational background, was the use of the force by the State agents to which the applicants have allegedly been exposed in the course of that operation indispensable and excessive in breach of Article 3 (see, for example, Samüt Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 16999/04, §§ 42-44, 27 January 2009; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68‑78, ECHR 2000 XII, and Altay v. Turkey, no. 22279/93, § 54, 22 May 2001; and, mutatis mutandis, Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, §§ 177-190, 7 April 2015)?
 
3.  Was the investigation of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, including but not limited to the criteria of promptness, reasonable expeditiousness, and independence (see the summary in Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015)?
 
Has the independence of the investigation been ensured in view of all the circumstances, including but not limited to its institutional framework (see Kummer v. the Czech Republic, no. 32133/11, §§ 83 et seq., 25 July 2013) and practical organisation (see, mutatis mutandis, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 2391/99, §§ 334-341, ECHR 2007‑II)?
 
4.  In connection with the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about their alleged ill-treatment, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
 
In particular, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s finding (see in particular page 29 of its decision of of 18 January 2018) that it was not its task to examine the actions of the police during the operation of 2 April 2015, what constituted such a remedy with regard to those actions?
 
5.  Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their Roma origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in connection with their complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention?
 
Taking into account the distribution of the burden of proof with regard to the specific facts of the present case, was the use of force by agents of the State against the applicants, which allegedly violated their rights under Article 3 of the Convention, racially neutral (see Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, §§ 125‑132, 4 March 2008)?
 
Can the authorities be said to have had before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their obligation to investigate on their own initiative possible racist motives behind the actions of the police on 2 April 2015 (see, for the applicable principles, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 163-66, ECHR 2005 VII, and, for their application, Ciorcan and Others v. Romania, nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09, § 164, 27 January 2015 and, a contrario, Adam v. Slovakia, no. 68066/12, § 94, 26 July 2016)? If so, have the authorities properly investigated that aspect of the case (see Stoica, cited above, §§ 119-124)?


 
All three applicants are Slovak nationals, live in Vrbnica and are represented by Ms V. Durbáková, a lawyer practicing in Košice.
     T.K. was born in 1997    D.K. was born in 1965    R.P. was born in 1976

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy