Strasbourg, 24 October 2024
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of B.B. v. Slovakia (application no. 48587/21) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned proceedings taken in Slovakia in response to an allegation that Ms B.B. had been trafficked in 2010 to the United Kingdom where she had worked as a prostitute for at least a year. In those proceedings, an individual was convicted of pimping.
The Court found in particular that the authorities had limited their efforts to establish the facts to those relevant to the assessment of the actions of the perpetrator as pimping. The facts on the surface had presented a plausible accusation of human trafficking, which the authorities had been under an obligation to investigate, but had failed to do.
Principal facts
The applicant, B.B., is a Slovak national who was born in 1990 and lives in Banská Bystica (Slovakia). She is of Roma ethnicity.
B.B. was initially brought up in State care and then moved in with a family, for whom she worked as a maid and whose son she was made to marry. She had a child, who was taken into State care. She became homeless.
In 2010 a certain Y arranged for B.B. to go to the United Kingdom to work as a prostitute. She worked there for a year, giving Y all her earnings, and managing his household. She was provided with drugs.
B.B. was eventually taken into the care of the Salvation Army in the UK. She returned to Slovakia in 2012 under a programme for the support and protection of victims of human trafficking, and on arrival was registered with a State-supported charity (Charita) as a victim of human trafficking, until the Government informed the charity that Y had been charged with pimping (rather than human trafficking).
In June 2012 B.B. began receiving treatment for schizophrenia.
Charita sent information concerning B.B.’s ordeal in the UK to the police. The police in Banská Bystrica noted human trafficking concerns, but the force in Humenné, which had jurisdiction, treated it as pimping, and ultimately charged Y with that offence.
In May 2013 the police investigator received a report from the UK authorities which was interpreted as their having concluded that B.B. had been trafficked.
Y was indicted for pimping in 2013 and initially acquitted, but the acquittal was quashed and a new trial followed.
On 30 November 2015 Y was found guilty as charged and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for 16 months. That judgment was upheld by the Regional Court, which noted that only the prosecution service was allowed ordinarily to appeal to allow Y’s actions to be examined under human trafficking rather than pimping.
In June 2017 the Minister of Justice lodged an appeal on points of law on behalf of B.B. That appeal was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court in June 2018.
Two constitutional complaints lodged by B.B. were unsuccessful, the first as premature, and the second found inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in May 2021.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
B.B. complained, in particular, that the Slovakian authorities’ failure to treat the offence as one of human trafficking, rather than pimping, had been incompatible with their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into a credible suspicion that she had been subjected to human trafficking, and thereby to a violation of her rights protected under Article 4 of the Convention (prohibition of slavery and forced labour). She also relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 September 2021. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,
Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),
Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
Péter Paczolay (Hungary),
Erik Wennerström (Sweden),
Raffaele Sabato (Italy), and also
Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Article 4
The Court reiterated that national and transnational trafficking in human beings, irrespective of whether or not it was connected with organised crime, fell within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention. States had an obligation under that Article to ensure situations of potential trafficking were investigated where there was a credible suspicion that an individual’s Article 4 rights had been violated. This did not imply an absolute right to obtain a prosecution or conviction; but rather a duty to institute and conduct an investigation capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and of identifying and – if appropriate – punishing those responsible.
There had been, in this case, a credible suspicion that the applicant had been subjected to trafficking. The Court referred, in particular, to B.B.’s allegation that Y had arranged for her transfer to the UK in order for her to work as a prostitute there and that she had accepted it for want of another alternative to becoming homeless (which was indicative of her vulnerability and lent support to her claim that Y had abused it). The authorities were accordingly under an obligation to ensure an effective investigation into the matter.
The events were investigated, albeit under the offence of pimping, which carried a lesser penalty than that of human trafficking. This had to be seen in the light of the persistent criticism of lenient sentencing in Slovakia in the area of human trafficking, which undermined deterrence, security and safety and, ultimately, the effectiveness of Slovakia’s counter-trafficking efforts. It was accordingly not enough to have addressed Y’s actions as suspected pimping; it was necessary to examine how the Slovak authorities responded to the possibility that they could have constituted human-trafficking.
It was not disputed by the parties and the Court accepted that Y’s actions could have amounted to human trafficking. Nevertheless, although it had been clear what was relevant to that assessment, the Slovakian authorities had failed to take evidence from B.B.’s family or other potentially corroborative witnesses to establish her situation. Overall, the evidence before the Court indicated that the authorities had consciously refrained from enquiring into human trafficking and had limited their efforts to looking into the pimping charge. This overall failure had been exacerbated by the length of the trial.
For the Court, the criminal proceedings in Slovakia had been significantly flawed as regards the authorities’ treatment of the accusations against B.B.’s alleged trafficker. It therefore found a violation of Article 4.
Other articles
Concerning B.B.’s complaint under Article 8 of having been repeatedly questioned about traumatising events, the Court reiterated that it was mindful of the sensitivity from the perspective of a victim of a sexual offence of giving evidence about that offence.
However, in this case, B.B. had neither at domestic level nor before the Court specified any particular aspect of her questioning – confrontation with the perpetrator, humiliating questions, the hearing being organised in an inappropriate manner, and so forth – as having been contrary to her right to respect for her private life.
The Court did not find any appearance of a violation of B.B.’s Article 8 rights and so declared this part of the complaint to be manifestly ill-founded.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Slovakia was to pay the applicant 26,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
The judgment is available only in English.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.
—
- Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Source – ECHR