ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

In October 2024, the ECHR found that Slovakia had violated Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECtHR) (the prohibition on slavery and forced labour) in not fully investigating a credible claim of human trafficking, leading to an unduly lenient charging decision. The case had been referred to it in September 2021.

In brief, the ECHR held that the decision to charge a lesser sentence of ‘pimping’ (which carried consequences in sentence length and directly to the victim, in terms of specialist care available to victims of human trafficking) was directly linked to a failure in the state’s positive obligations under Article 4 to conduct an effective investigation which explored all lines of investigation. The domestic courts were not barred from acting as a fact-finding court given the requirement for “particularly thorough scrutiny” of these matters. Slovakia had failed to discharge its positive obligations and therefore had violated the applicant’s Article 4 rights.

More background

The applicant/victim was a vulnerable individual, with learning difficulties who was brought up in state care. Her adoptive family sold her to a human trafficker (Y), who trafficked her to the UK, where she was the victim of abuse and sexual exploitation. She was identified as a victim by UK Border Force and was repatriated to Slovakia in April 2012, under the programme of the “International Organization for Migration for the support and protection of victims of trafficking in human beings”.

In Slovakia, she was under the care of Caritas Slovakia, a charity linked to the Ministry of the Interior which ran a specialist support service for “the provision of assistance and support to victims of human trafficking”.

Following an investigation and provision of multiple statements by the applicant, the police charged Y with the offence of ‘pimping’ under the Criminal Code. Pimping offences carry much lighter potential sentences, with a three years maximum sentence, as compared to the offence of ‘human trafficking’, which has a maximum sentence of 10 years. It also has a lower standard of evidence and it was found that the police did not collect (nor present to the first instance court) evidence to sustain allegations of human trafficking, which the court found to be a credible line of investigation.

The decision not to charge human trafficking directly led to the Ministry of the Interior removing the applicant from the programme of assistance, which was available only to victims of human trafficking.

Y was found guilty of pimping and sentenced to one year of imprisonment, suspended for 16 months. On appeal, the Regional Court found that it could not review the failure to charge human trafficking as the prosecutor had not also lodged an appeal on that ground. The Minister of Justice exercised their discretion to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, which found the appeal inadmissible as an exercise in fact finding, as opposed to error of law.

The matter went to the Slovakian Constitutional Court, which refused to hear the complaint, on largely the same grounds.

ECHR decision

The ECHR found in favour of the applicant and ruled that Slovakia was in violation of her Article 4 rights (the freedom from slavery and forced labour) by not discharging its obligations to conduct an effective investigation into the credible lines of investigation on human trafficking.

The state’s charging decision derived from this violation, and the courts should have reviewed this in exercising the “particularly thorough scrutiny” applied to potential Article 4 violations.

The court did not entertain an Article 8 (private life) claim, which did not have the “appearance of a violation”.

It awarded €26,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €15,000 in costs and expenses.