Communicated on 4 March 2020 Published on 23 March 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 43115/18 M.H. and Others ( no. 2 ) against Croatia lodged on 13 July 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants in the case are fourteen Afghan nationals; one man, his two wives and their eleven children. They already have a case pending before the Court ( M.H. and Others v. Croatia, no. 15670/18, communicated on 11 May 2018).

The present application concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 2 of the Convention about the death of MAD.H., their six-year-old daughter and sister, near the border between Croatia and Serbia, and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into her death.

It also concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective procedure whereby they could challenge the lawfulness of their placement in the Tovarnik immigration centre.

In particular, the applicants submit that on 21 November 2017 the first applicant and her six children (the ninth, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth applicants and MAD.H.), entered Croatia from Serbia, told the Croatian police officers that they wished to seek asylum, but were denied the opportunity to do so and were ordered to return to Serbia by following the train tracks, after which MAD.H. was hit by a train and died. The applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the Croatian police officers which was rejected. Their request to take over the prosecution was likewise rejected. In December 2018 the Constitutional Court examined the effectiveness of the investigation into MAD.H.’s death under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention and concluded that it was effective. Three judges of that court submitted a dissenting opinion to the decision, considering that the investigating authorities had failed to obtain crucial evidence in the case.

The applicants further submit that they managed to challenge the decisions of 21 March 2018 ordering their placement in the Tovarnik immigration centre only after those decisions were accidentally discovered in the case-file by their legal-aid lawyer in April 2018. They also submit that the administrative court reviewed the lawfulness of their detention as late as 22 May 2018, even though there were numerous children involved.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the right to life of MAD.H., protected by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? Did the State comply with its positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to safeguard the right to life of MAD.H.?

2. 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), did the investigation into the death of MAD.H. by the domestic authorities comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?

3. (a ) Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure whereby they could challenge the lawfulness of their placement in the Tovarnik immigration centre, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

(b) Did the decisions concerning the review of their placement in that centre comply with the requirement of “speediness” laid down in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicants’ names

Birth year as submitted by the applicants

Nationality

1M.H.

1980Afghan

2R.H.

1980Afghan

3F.H.

1998Afghan

4N.H.

2000Afghan

5NA.H.

2013Afghan

6S.H.

2008Afghan

7MA.H.

2017Afghan

8MU.H.

2015Afghan

9A.H.

2015Afghan

10MUR.H.

2014Afghan

11SA.H.

2014Afghan

12RO.H.

2009Afghan

13RA.H.

2002Afghan

14L.H.

2002Afghan