Communicated on 8 September 2014
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 64602/12
R.B.
against Hungary
lodged on 2 October 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms R.B., is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Gyöngyöspata. She is represented before the Court by Mr Sz. Sánta, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is of Roma origin and an inhabitant of Gyöngyöspata, a village of 2,800 people, about 450 of whom are of Roma origin.
On 6 March 2011 Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom (Movement for a Better Hungary) held a demonstration in Gyöngyöspata. Between 1 and 16 March 2011, in connection with the demonstration, Szebb Jövőért Polgárőr Egyesület (Civil Guard Association for a Better Future) and two other right-wing paramilitary groups (Betyársereg and Véderő) organised marches in the Roma neighbourhood of the village.
On 10 March 2011 Mr S.T., together with three other members of Betyársereg, passed by the applicant’s house, yelling “Go inside, you damned dirty gypsies!” In response, the applicant and her acquaintances told S.T. to leave, as it was their village. S.T. continued threatening them by saying he would build a house in the Roma neighbourhood “out of their blood”. He also stepped towards the fence swinging an axe towards the applicant, but was held back by one of his companions.
During the demonstration and the marches police officers were present in Gyöngyöspata with enhanced forces, but did not intervene.
On 7 April 2011 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators with the Heves County Regional Police Department alleging “violence against a member of an ethnic group”, harassment and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm.
On an unspecified date the applicant was heard as a witness concerning the events. At the request of her lawyer, the Gyöngyös Police Department informed the applicant that criminal proceedings had been opened on charges of harassment based on the criminal complaint of a third person, Mr J.F. Subsequently, the applicant was informed that her case had been joined to that of J.F.
On 7 October 2011 the Gyöngyös District Public Prosecutor’s Office opened investigations on suspicion of harassment. On 20 October 2011 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Prosecutor’s Office to open investigations for “violence against a member of an ethnic group”. This request was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office on 3 November 2011.
As appears from the case file, the identities of the persons who had passed by the applicant’s house and that of the alleged perpetrator, S.T., were established by the investigating authorities. Moreover, the Police Department questioned a number of witnesses, the applicant’s acquaintances, but only two of them provided statements relevant for the case. S.T. refused to testify.
On 2 February 2012 the Gyöngyös Police Department discontinued the investigations on the ground that none of the witnesses heard had substantiated the applicant’s allegation that she had been threatened.
The applicant complained against this decision, arguing that the witness testimonies clearly stated that S.T. had uttered threatening and degrading statements and that from the circumstances of the case it was clear that they had been directed against the applicant. She also submitted that the investigation authorities had failed to hear S.T. and two other individuals suspected of the offences.
On 21 March 2012 the Gyöngyös District Public Prosecutor’s Office upheld the first-instance decision, finding that the threats and insults had not been directed against the applicant.
On 1 June 2012 the applicant, acting as substitute private prosecutor, filed a motion with the Gyöngyös District Court, which was declared admissible on 13 June 2012. These proceedings appear to be pending before the domestic authorities.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant contends that she was insulted and threatened because of her Roma origin, and that the authorities failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the attack which she suffered, in particular in that they did not take sufficient action to establish a possible racist motive for the incident. She further complains about the absence of an appropriate response by the police to disperse the marches in general and to prevent the incident she suffered in particular. She relies on Articles 3 and 8 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the application been introduced in compliance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, given that her motion for substitute private prosecution appears to be pending?
2. Did the treatment the applicant was subjected to reach the threshold of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, having regard to the 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 in the present case adequate for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Alternatively, in allegedly failing to act expeditiously (i) in preventing violent manifestations of intolerance against the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Hajduová v. Slovakia, no. 2660/03, §§ 49-50, 30 November 2010) and (ii) in the criminal investigations, have the Hungarian authorities failed to meet their positive obligations, if any, arising out of Article 8 of the Convention, including the unravelling of any racist motives of the insulter?
4. Have the authorities taken all reasonable steps to investigate any possible racist motivation behind the alleged attack on the applicant, as required by Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005‑VII)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy