Published on 27 November 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 29229/22 Katarína KURUOVÁ and Helena HORVATHOVÁ against Slovakia lodged on 7 June 2022 communicated on 6 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns an incident between the applicants (two sisters of Roma origin) and the police, which took place on 23 July 2019 in front of the house of the applicant Ms Katarína Kuruová (“the first applicant”) in Milhosť and at a police station in Čaňa (villages in eastern Slovakia).

This incident had been preceded by an altercation in the local pub involving the applicants’ relatives, which led to their arrest, and the applicants’ coming to the pub with a view to establishing why the situation had escalated into the calling of the police. In the process of doing so, the daughter of the applicant Ms Helena Horváthová (“the second applicant”) allegedly pushed another person and threw some objects on the floor (which the applicants deny).

Following the above, a motorised police patrol from Košice arrived at the first applicant’s house where both applicants were present. The property is separated from the road by a brook and can be accessed by a small bridge. The applicants were arrested under Article 85 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allows anyone to arrest another person committing an offence or immediately after having committed an offence if it is necessary inter alia to secure evidence or to prevent the commission of further offences. They were then brought to the police station and kept there until release in the early hours of the next day, no depositions having been taken from them.

In the applicants’ submission, in the course of the arrest, officers entered the yard of the first applicant’s house and the first applicant was grabbed by the hair, dragged onto the bridge, hit several times by a hand, and her hand was twisted behind her back forcing her to lean forward. The second applicant claims having been grabbed and pushed towards the bridge by what is understood to have been a baton and having been kicked in the back and slapped in the face. The applicants also allege that they were verbally referred to as “gypsies” and “morons” and that, on their arrival at the police station, the first applicant was again slapped once and they were held in a cleaning personnel’s cabinet (the first applicant) and gentlemen’s toilet (the second applicant).

In the afternoon after their release, the applicants saw a doctor who certified them as having suffered contusions, sprains and the first applicant also a fracture of a finger on her left hand. An expert later concluded that these injuries could have been caused by the ill-treatment alleged by the applicants. They could likewise have been caused accidentally, each of these alternatives being equally probable.

Upon the applicants’ criminal complaint, an investigation was opened against one or more officers unknown on the suspicion of having abused official power and trespassing. It was carried out by the eastern unit of the Inspection Service of the Ministry of the Interior, which has a seat in the same building as the police structure to which the intervening motorised police patrol belonged. The investigation was suspended as there was not enough evidence to bring charges against any concrete person. In that regard, the decision noted what was considered to be inconsistencies in the applicants’ accounts and the results of an identity parade held in the case.

The applicants’ constitutional complaint was rejected (case no. II. US 19/22), essentially on the grounds that the decision to suspend the investigation was not a decision resolving the situation on the merits but merely a procedural decision of an interim nature.

The application raises issues under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the finding of the Košice Regional Office of the Public Prosecution Service in its decision of 6 October 2021 to the effect that the applicants failed to raise in a timely fashion their allegation that the officers under investigation and those investigating them might be acquainted and the scope of the applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint, have they exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in relation to their complaint that the investigation into their alleged ill-treatment lacked in independence?

2. During their arrest and detention at the police station, have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

Did the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities? If so, did they provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts so as to cast doubt on the account of events given by the applicants (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83, ECHR 2015)?

3. Can the applicants’ allegation of ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention be considered credible so as to engage the procedural protection under that provision (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 182, ECHR 2012, with further references)?

If so, having regard to such protection (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into those allegations in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§ 114-23), including but not only the aspect of independence (see, mutatis mutandis , Mižigárová v. Slovakia , no. 74832/01, §§ 98-100, 14 December 2010; Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic , no. 23944/04, § 151-60, 16 February 2012, with further references; Kummer v. the Czech Republic , no. 32133/11, §§ 83-88, 25 July 2013; and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 225, 14 April 2015)?

4. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their Roma origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention?

In particular, did the domestic authorities have before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in their alleged ill-treatment (see, a contrario , Adam v. Slovakia , no. 68066/12, § 94, 26 July 2016, with further references and, mutatis mutandis, Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia , no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018)? If so, did they take such steps?