Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Key facts of the case:
The plaintiff's application for international protection in Slovakia was denied as ineligible by the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior (defendant). In the defendant’s view, in line with the Article 11 (3) Asylum Act, the country responsible for the plaintiff’s application was Hungary. (The plaintiff arrived to Hungary from Greece, crossing Serbia). Hungary accepted the responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation on 27.12.2016. The plaintiff’s legal representative, in her complaint against the decision of the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior argued, that his return to Hungary would constitute a violation of the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Article 4 of the Charter, due to systemic deficiencies of the Hungarian asylum system. The Regional Court Kosice cancelled the decision of the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior, and returned the case to the defendant for the new proceedings (on the merits).
Outcome of the case:
The Regional Court Košice cancelled the decision of the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior, and returned the case to the defendant for the new proceedings (on merits).
53. In the Courts view, the administrative body has not scrupulously examined the circumstances of the case, which could result in such deficiencies in its decision, that could constitute violation of rights guaranteed to the plaintiff by the Article 16 (2) of the Slovak Constitution, as well as, Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of the Charter, given the fact that the administrative body has not thoroughly examined systemic problems in the Hungarian asylum procedure, as well as reception conditions for asylum seekers in Hungary.
47. From the Article 16 (2) of the Slovak Constitution, the Article 3 of the Convention and the Article 4 of the Charter follows, that their diction is essentially identical, and the Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic, in its decision making practise is of the opinion, that from the point of view of requirements put forward by these three provisions, being protection, there are no differences among the three.
50. A possible violation of the absolute prohibition of ill treatment as provided for by the Article 3 of the Convention and Article 16 (2) of the Constitution invokes the procedural obligation of the State to ensure effective official investigation of claimed ill treatment, while “efficient” comprises in particular the attributes of exhaustiveness, expeditiousness, independence and impartiality (III. ÚS 70/01, III. ÚS 86/05, III. ÚS 194/06).
53. Správny súd má zato, že správny orgán dôsledne neposúdil okolnosti daného prípadu, čo mohlo mať za následok vznik takých nedostatkov v jeho rozhodnutí, ktoré mohli spočívať v porušení práv zaručených žalobcovi čl. 16. ods. 2 Ústavy SR, ako aj čl. 3 Dohovoru a čl. 4 Charty, nakoľko dôsledne neposúdil systémové chyby azylového konania, ako aj podmienky prijímania žiadateľov o azyl v Maďarskej republike.
47. Z článku 16 ods. 2 Ústavy SR a čl. 3 Dohovoru a čl. 4 Charty vyplýva, že ich dikcia je v podstate identická, pričom Ústavný súd SR vo svojej činnosti zastáva názor, že z hľadiska požiadaviek, ktoré kladú na ochranu, nie sú medzi nimi žiadne rozdiely.
50. Možné porušenie absolútneho zákazu zlého zaobchádzania v zmysle čl. 3 Dohovoru a čl. 16 ods. 2 Ústavy SR vyvoláva procesnú povinnosť štátu zabezpečiť účinné úradné vyšetrenie tvrdeného zlého zaobchádzania, pričom pojem „účinné“ zahŕňa predovšetkým atribúty dôkladnosti, rýchlosti, nezávislosti a nestrannosti (obdobne napr. III. ÚS 70/01, III. ÚS 86/05, III. ÚS 194/06).
