Communicated on 1 September 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 15529/12 János Krisztián BALÁZS against Hungary lodged on 5 March 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr János Krisztián Balázs , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1991 and lives in Szeged. He is represented before the Court by Ms E. Muhi , a lawyer practising in Érd .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 21 January 2011 the applicant and his girlfriend, Ms D.L., were insulted by three men in front of a club in Szeged, Hungary. The applicant maintains that the three men made degrading comments about his Roma origin and about the physical appearance of his girlfriend.

Subsequently a fourth person, Mr E.D., appeared, presenting himself as a police officer. He got into a fight with the applicant which ended due to the intervention of the applicant ’ s acquaintances. Following the fight, Mr E.D. called the police. Two officers arrived. Both the applicant and Mr E.D. – as well as the girlfriend – were escorted to the police station and released the day after.

On 23 January 2011 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, who found that he had bruises on his chest, back, neck and face.

On 1 February 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Szeged Public Prosecutor ’ s Office against Mr E.D. He submitted that his insulters had shouted at him “Dirty gypsy, do you need a cigarette? Here is money!” and thrown cigarettes and money at him. He also maintained that Mr E.D., who presented himself as a police officer upon his arrival at the scene, had asked the others whether “[they] could not handle a dirty little gypsy” and, turning to him, had called him a gypsy. He also gave a description of the injuries he had suffered. Furthermore, he explained that the day after the incident he had identified Mr E.D. on a social network, where the latter had been commenting that the night before he “had been kicking in the head a gypsy lying on the ground”.

On 7 February 2011 the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office opened a criminal investigation against Mr E.D. for the offence of “violence against a member of a group” within the meaning of section 170 (1) of the Criminal Code.

On 17 March 2011 the two police officers who had arrived at the scene were questioned, as well as Ms D.L. The latter corroborated the applicant ’ s version of the events. The testimony of the police officers ’ did not contain any account of the incident; they had arrived at the scene only after the fight.

On 5 July 2011 Mr E.D. was questioned as a suspect on charges of public disturbance ( garázdaság ). He stated that the applicant had provoked him. He admitted to having pushed the applicant away in self-defence, but explained that he had neither hit nor insulted him.

In a decision of 20 July 2011 the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office discontinued the investigation into “violence against a member of a group”, considering that there was no indication that Mr E.D. had attacked the applicant out of racial hatred. It could not be established who had provoked the fight and whether there was a causal link between the insults directed against the applicant and the fight.

On appeal by the applicant, on 8 September 2011 the Csongrád County Regional Public Prosecutor ’ s Office upheld the first-instance decision, considering that although there were elements to suggest that the fight had had racist motives, they did not prove beyond doubt that the applicant had been attacked on the ground of his Roma origin.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant contends that on 21 January 2011 he was attacked because of his Roma origin, and that the authorities have failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the attack which he suffered, in particular in that they have not taken sufficient action to establish a possible racist motive for the assault. He relies on Article 3 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the States ’ positive obligation under Article 3 to provide procedural protection from ill-treatment even when inflicted by private persons (see Beganović v. Croatia , no. 46423/06 , § 71, 25 June 2009) , was the investigation adequate for the purposes of Article 3 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14, also with regard to exploring the potential racist motives (see Abdu v. Bulgaria , no. 26827/08 , § 29, 11 March 2014)? Did the authorities obtain testimonies from eyewitnesses other than the persons directly involved in the incident?