FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KURUOVÁ AND HORVÁTHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 29229/22)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 March 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kuruová and Horváthová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Frédéric Krenc, President,
Davor Derenčinović,
Alain Chablais, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 29229/22) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 7 June 2022 by two Slovak nationals, Ms Katarína Kuruová and Ms Helena Horváthová (“the applicants”), who were born in 1968 and 1979 respectively, live in Milhosť and were represented by the European Roma Rights Centre and Mr M. Zalesak, a lawyer practising in Bratislava;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning ill‑treatment by police officers and discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention to the Slovak Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the application by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case 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 first applicant, Ms Katarína Kuruová, in Milhosť and at a police station in Čaňa (villages in eastern Slovakia).
2. The incident was preceded by an altercation in the local pub involving the applicants’ relatives, which led to the relatives’ arrest. The applicants then went to the pub with a view to establishing why the situation had escalated to such an extent that the police had been called. After their arrival, the daughter of the second applicant, Ms Helena Horváthová, allegedly pushed another person and threw some objects on the floor.
3. A motorised police patrol from Košice subsequently arrived at the first applicant’s house, where both applicants were present. They were arrested and taken to the police station, where they were kept until their release in the early hours of the following day. No statements were taken from the applicants during that period. The arrest reports referred to them as “a bunch of local Roma women” (“tlupa miestnych Rómiek”).
4. According to the applicants, in the course of their arrest, police 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 one of the officers, and had her left hand twisted behind her back, forcing her to lean forward. The second applicant claimed to have been grabbed and pushed towards the bridge with what she understood to have been a baton, before being kicked in the back and slapped in the face. They also alleged that they had been verbally referred to as “gypsies” (“cigánky”) and “degenerates” (“degešky”).
5. According to the Government, the police officers did not use any coercive measures in respect of the applicants and the applicants did not have any injuries when they were arrested or while they were held at the police station.
6. In the afternoon of the day of their release, 24 July 2019, the applicants saw a doctor, who certified that they had suffered bodily injuries. In particular, the first applicant had a fracture of the middle joint of the fourth finger of her left hand, a contusion on the back of her neck and cervical spine, and a contusion on the left side of her chest, with an expected healing time of up to three weeks. With regard to the second applicant, she had contusions on the left side of her face, both sides of her jaw, her right shoulder, and around the lumbar region of her back (in particular on the right side), and had suffered distortion of the cervical spine, with an expected healing time of seven days. The doctor also noted that the injuries could have been inflicted as a result of ill‑treatment by the police officers, as stated by the applicants.
7. On 26 July 2019 the applicants initiated criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned for abuse of power.
8. On 30 April 2020 an expert concluded that the above‑mentioned injuries could have been caused by the applicants’ alleged ill‑treatment. They could likewise have been caused by an accidental fall, with both of those alternatives being equally probable.
9. On 13 August 2021, after the questioning of several witnesses, an identification parade in which the applicants identified the police officers allegedly involved in the incident, and a reconstruction of the events, an investigator of the Office of the Inspection Service suspended the investigation because no facts had been established on the basis of which to bring criminal charges. The applicants challenged that decision before the prosecutor’s office.
10. On 6 October 2021 the Košice Regional Prosecutor’s Office dismissed their complaint, endorsing the above‑mentioned findings.
11. On 20 January 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ complaint by decision no. II. ÚS 19/2022-17 for lack of jurisdiction in so far as the investigation had been temporarily suspended and no final decision to terminate the investigation had been taken.
12. The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION13. The applicants submitted that the use of force against them by the police officers had been unwarranted and disproportionate, based on bias against them, and that the investigation into the use of such force had lacked thoroughness and had not been independent. The Government argued that no force had been used against the applicants and that, with regard to the investigation, which was still ongoing, it had thus far been as thorough as possible and no final decision had yet been taken.
14. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
15. The Court has summarised the applicable case-law principles in its judgments in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114‑23, ECHR 2015) and R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia (no. 20649/18, §§146, 176 and 178, 1 September 2020).
16. In order to benefit from the presumption of fact in respect of injuries occurring during their detention, individuals claiming to be the victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention must demonstrate that they display traces of ill‑treatment after being under the control of the police or a similar authority (see Bouyid, cited above, § 92). In the present case, it is common ground between the parties that the applicants were arrested and that the day of their release they were found to have injuries by a doctor, who also concluded that those injuries might have been caused as a result of ill‑treatment by the police officers (see paragraph 6 above). Moreover, there is no indication that the applicants had had any injuries before their arrest. Nor is there any indication that the injuries in question were self‑inflicted or that they had been caused between the time of the applicants’ release and their examination by a doctor. The objective findings of the doctors and the expert contained a detailed description of the injuries and a conclusion as to their possible cause. The Court also notes that the applicants’ alleged ill‑treatment took place in the course of their arrest on 23 July 2019, that they saw the doctor a few hours after their release on 24 July 2019, and that they lodged an official complaint almost immediately, that is, on 26 July 2019. Lastly, the Government have not provided an alternative plausible explanation for the applicants’ injuries (see, by contrast, Adam v. Slovakia, no. 68066/12, §§ 53‑58, 26 July 2016).
17. It can therefore be concluded “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicants’ injuries were the result of measures taken against them by agents of the State between the time of their arrest and their release.
18. In that regard, the Court reiterates that where an individual is deprived of his or her liberty or, more generally, is confronted with law‑enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the person’s conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid, cited above, § 100, and M.B. and Others v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 63962/19, § 73, 7 February 2023). The Court finds that, in the present case, the existence of physical pain or suffering is supported by the medical reports and the applicants’ statements regarding their ill‑treatment in custody, from which it is apparent that the pain and suffering had been inflicted on them intentionally. The acts of ill-treatment as confirmed by the medical evidence were such as to arouse in the applicants feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in particular the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects, and the victims’ sex, age and state of health, the Court concludes that, taken as a whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
19. Accordingly, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive limb.
20. As regards the effectiveness of the investigation into the alleged ill‑treatment of the applicants in police custody, the Court reiterates that compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 3 is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters, in particular, the effective participation of the victims, the promptness, thoroughness and independence of the investigation, and the adequacy of the investigative measures (see Bouyid, §§ 118-23; R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, § 178, with further references; and M.B. and Others v. Slovakia, § 55, all cited above).
21. In the present case, the victims were able to participate effectively in the investigation. At the same time, the Court reiterates that an investigation must be thorough, which means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill‑founded conclusions to close their investigation. Although the applicants’ case was considered at several levels of jurisdiction, a large part of those examinations and conclusions constituted an endorsement of the position taken by the investigating authorities (see Adam, cited above, § 75), which in turn had relied predominantly on the medical expert report issued in April 2020, several months after the applicants’ arrest, and the arguments put forward by the police, rather than on the evidence adduced by the applicants (see M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 55, 31 October 2017, and A.P. v. Slovakia, no. 10465/17, § 78, 28 January 2020). The domestic authorities did not sufficiently analyse the expert’s conclusion that the injuries could have been caused by the police officers and thus failed to sufficiently establish the cause and circumstances of the applicants’ bodily injuries.
22. Moreover, the investigation in the present case was started on 26 July 2019, suspended on 13 August 2021 and no action has been taken for several years, at least according to the information on the date of receipt of the parties’ observations by the Court. None of the alleged perpetrators of the ill‑treatment have ever been formally identified or charged, despite their identification by the applicants. Although the period from the beginning of the investigation until its suspension amounted to just over two years, which might in itself have been considered acceptable, having regard to the fact that the proceedings have been inactive for a considerable period of time, it cannot be concluded that the investigation was prompt.
23. Accordingly, in the present case, the investigation into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by police officers was not effective.
24. Lastly, noting that the independence of an investigation is a component of the assessment of its overall effectiveness, in view of the finding that the investigation was not effective for the reasons mentioned above the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine this remaining aspect of the applicants’ complaint (see R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, § 189, and A.P. v. Slovakia, § 83, both cited above).
25. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH the procedural aspect of ARTICLE 326. The applicants submitted that the domestic authorities failed to comply with their obligation to investigate properly the possible racist motives behind their ill-treatment. In particular, they had been verbally assaulted with references to their ethnic origin implying racial bias on the part of the police officers. The Government argued that there was no sufficiently strong evidence of racism to engage their duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive of the police officers.
27. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
28. The Court has summarised the applicable case-law principles in its judgments in M.F. v. Hungary, cited above, §§ 65 and 71-73, and R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, cited above, §§ 200-01.
29. In particular, the Court reiterates that when investigating violent incidents triggered by suspected racist attitudes, the State authorities are required to take all reasonable action to ascertain whether there were racist motives and to establish whether feelings of hatred or prejudices based on a person’s ethnic origin played a role in the events. Treating racially motivated violence and brutality on an equal footing with cases lacking any racist overtones would be tantamount to turning a blind eye to the specific nature of acts which are particularly destructive of fundamental human rights (see M.F. v. Hungary, cited above, § 73). That obligation is part of the responsibility incumbent on States under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, but it is also an aspect of the procedural obligations flowing from Article 3 (see Škorjanec v. Croatia, no. 25536/14, § 37, 28 March 2017).
30. In the present case, the police officers explicitly referred to the applicants in their arrest reports as “a bunch of local Roma women” (“tlupa miestnych Rómiek”) (see paragraph 3 above). The word “tlupa” has a pejorative meaning in Slovak. The mere use of such an expression in an official document may raise doubts as to an officer’s attitude towards a suspect and may even demonstrate a level of hostility. Moreover, it gives more credibility to the applicants’ allegations regarding other insults allegedly used by the police officers (see paragraph 4 above).
31. Where any evidence of racist verbal abuse comes to light, it must be checked and, if confirmed, a thorough examination of all the facts should be undertaken in order to uncover any possible racist motives (see Balázs v. Hungary, no. 15529/12, § 61, 20 October 2015).
32. The authorities investigating the alleged ill-treatment obtained consistent allegations from the applicants according to which, in addition to having been the victims of physical assaults, they had been subjected to racial abuse by the officers. Moreover, they had before them the arrest reports with the pejorative references to the applicants. Thus, the authorities clearly had plausible information which was sufficient to alert them to the need to carry out an investigation into possible racist overtones in the applicants’ ill-treatment (see M.B. and Others v. Slovakia (no. 2), cited above, § 95).
33. Still, the authorities failed to do what was reasonable in the circumstances, that is to collect the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of racially induced violence. In these circumstances, the authorities’ 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 the applicants’ ill-treatment cannot be seen as having been complied with.
34. There has accordingly been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 14, in conjunction with the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the lack of investigation into the alleged discrimination.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION35. The applicants claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 6,560 jointly in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
36. The Government submitted that the amount of the applicants’ claims was overstated.
37. The Court awards EUR 13,500 to the first applicant and EUR 8,500 to the second applicant in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
38. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants EUR 6,560 jointly in respect of costs and expenses.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the application admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention;Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred euros) to Ms K. Kuruová and EUR 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred euros) to Ms H. Horváthová, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; EUR 6,560 (six thousand five hundred and sixty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Frédéric Krenc
Deputy Registrar President