JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES KELLER AND SERGHIDES

1 . We wholeheartedly concur with the Court ’ s judgment as to the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. However, we respectfully disagree with the manner in which the Court avoids assessing the merits of the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. The Court should have cut straight to an examination of the merits, as it has done in similar cases (see, for example, Stoica v. Romania , no. 42722/02, § 116, 4 March 2008 ).

2 . The Court reasons that the applicant failed to properly make out that he individually suffered racial discrimination and that the domestic authorities were accordingly under no obligation to investigate the possibility of racism (see paragraphs 89–93 of the judgment). In our view, the Court ’ s approach attaches insufficient weight to the emphasis that was placed on the applicant ’ s racial identity in the order of 27 July 2015, closing the investigation into his criminal complaint, to which the Court refers at paragraph 21 of its judgment. In addition, the Court only briefly describes the context, which it should have considered more deeply: “the sensitive nature of the situation related to Roma in Slovakia at the relevant time” (see paragraph 87 of the judgment). The applicant provided evidence to support his claim that this context encompassed systemic police bias, as did the European Roma Rights Centre in third party observations subsequently adopted by the applicant (compare Talpis v. Italy , no. 41237/14, § 141, 2 March 2017).

3 . We wish to caution against setting an excessively high threshold for the Court to address the merits of complaints under Article 14, especially those brought by applicants belonging to groups subject to discrimination. The Court should not shy away from the substance of allegations of racial discrimination, an “invidious kind of discrimination [which has] perilous consequences” (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV).

4 . In the context of racial discrimination against Roma, the Grand Chamber has called for “special vigilance and a vigorous reaction” on the part of domestic authorities (ibid.). Confronted with the degrading treatment of a Roma boy by police against a background of racial tension, the Court ought to have demonstrated similar attentiveness by examining the merits of the complaint under Article 14.