Introduction
On 16 July 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section) delivered its judgment in S.T. v. the Czech Republic (Application no. 28273/23, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0716JUD002827323). The case was brought by a Czech national, Ms S.T., who is the sister of a man of Roma ethnicity — referred to throughout the judgment by the same initials, S.T. — who died on 19 June 2021 following a police intervention.
The application raised issues under Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court's findings touch on several distinct but interconnected concerns: the manner in which the police physically restrained S.T., the adequacy of the domestic investigation that followed his death, and the failure of the authorities to investigate whether racial bias played a role in the intervention.
This article summarises and explains the key elements of the judgment as they appear in the official document. It is intended to assist readers in understanding the Court's reasoning and the legal standards applied. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers with specific legal concerns should consult a qualified professional.
Background facts
According to the judgment, on 19 June 2021 at 2.51 p.m., a call was made to the police emergency line reporting that S.T. and another person were fighting in the street and causing damage to surrounding vehicles. CCTV footage showed S.T. attacking another person, rolling on the ground, flailing his arms, striking a vehicle with his fist and head, and then falling to the ground visibly dazed.
A police patrol comprising Commander Z.V. and Officers M.Š. and D.V. arrived at the initial scene at 2.56 p.m. Bystanders informed them that the men had moved to an adjacent street and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. At approximately 2.59 p.m. the patrol arrived on that street, where S.T. was on the ground, thrashing about and shouting unclear words. Commander Z.V. and Officer M.Š. later stated in their accounts that S.T. had clearly been under the influence of drugs and had scratches on his body and blood coming from his mouth. Immediately upon the patrol's arrival, S.T. attacked Commander Z.V.
The judgment records that S.T. died on 19 June 2021 following the police intervention. The applicant, his sister, was born in 1977 and lives in Bílina. She was represented by Mr M. Matiaško, a lawyer practising in Prague, and the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), based in Brussels.
Article 2: substantive findings on the right to life
The Court found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive dimension, engaging the state's positive obligations to protect life. Central to this finding was the manner in which the police intervention was conducted. According to the judgment, S.T. was held in the prone position for over eleven minutes while handcuffed, intoxicated, and injured, with an officer kneeling on him for over four minutes. The Court found that this manner of restraint put S.T. at an imminent risk of death or serious health impairment.
The Court also identified a failure to provide timely medical assistance as a contributing element of the Article 2 violation. This reflects the well-established principle that state agents who place a person in a situation of physical vulnerability incur a corresponding duty to ensure that appropriate medical care is made available without undue delay.
A further concern identified by the Court related to the non-activation of a body camera worn by one of the officers. The judgment notes that the domestic authorities failed to explain or investigate this omission. The Court observed that body cameras are conceived to be used in situations of heightened tensions and action, to clarify the circumstances of an intervention and to protect police officers against potentially inaccurate or false allegations. The failure to activate such a device in precisely the kind of situation it was designed for, and the subsequent failure to investigate that omission, were treated as significant.
The Court also found that the relevant domestic framework at the material time did not provide clear and adequate instructions on placing individuals in the prone position, whether or not accompanied by kneeling on a person's body, with a view to reducing to a minimum the risks to health and life. Linked to this, the Court found that the state authorities had failed to adequately discharge their obligation to train law enforcement officers in such a manner as to ensure that they possessed the requisite high level of competence when employing the prone position.
Article 3: substantive findings on the use of force
In addition to the Article 2 findings, the Court found a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Court characterised the force used during the intervention as disproportionate.
The Article 3 finding is closely connected to the Article 2 analysis. The same physical circumstances — the prolonged prone restraint, the handcuffing, the officer kneeling on S.T. while he was already intoxicated and injured — that gave rise to an imminent risk to life were also found to constitute treatment that crossed the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3. The two findings together reflect the Court's assessment that the conduct of the officers was not merely operationally flawed but rose to the level of a Convention violation in its own right, independent of the fatal outcome.
Articles 2 and 3: procedural failures in the domestic investigation
The Court found procedural violations of both Articles 2 and 3, arising from the inadequacy of the domestic investigation into S.T.'s death. The procedural limb of these articles requires states to conduct effective official investigations when individuals die or are subjected to serious ill-treatment at the hands of state agents.
According to the judgment, the investigation was initially handled by bodies that lacked the necessary independence. This is a fundamental requirement of an effective investigation: the persons responsible for carrying it out must be independent of those implicated in the events under scrutiny.
Beyond the independence deficit, the Court found the investigation to have been incomprehensive in scope and to have failed to explore contradictory evidence. A key forensic expert report was identified as particularly deficient: it did not engage at all with the potential dangerousness of the prone position, which was the central physical mechanism of the restraint that preceded S.T.'s death.
The Court further found that the applicant, as the deceased's sister and the person who brought the application, was not afforded effective participation in the investigation. The right of next of kin to be involved in proceedings of this nature is a recognised component of the procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3, and its absence contributed to the overall finding of a procedural violation.
Article 14 read with Articles 2 and 3: the obligation to investigate racial motivation
The Court found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. When read with Articles 2 and 3, it requires that where there is a prima facie indication that a use of force or a death may have been motivated by racial or ethnic prejudice, the authorities must take all reasonable steps to investigate and, if established, expose that motivation.
The judgment records that S.T. was of Roma ethnicity and that there was a prima facie case of racial bias against him requiring an effective investigation. The Court found that the authorities failed to take all reasonable steps to uncover any racist motive behind the police intervention. Critically, no attempt was made to explore the possibility that institutional racism could have influenced the conduct of the police officers involved.
The Court characterised the overall response of the authorities as conveying the impression that the matter was not taken sufficiently seriously. It noted a manifest lack of diligence in investigating both the intervention as a whole and its potential racial dimension, as well as the absence of a formal investigation into the racial aspect of the case.
This finding is significant in the context of the Court's broader jurisprudence on the intersection of policing, ethnicity, and the Convention. The obligation to investigate potential racial motivation is not merely procedural in a technical sense; it reflects the principle that violence inflicted on individuals because of their ethnic or racial identity strikes at the core values of the Convention, and that states must demonstrate through their investigative conduct that they treat such cases with the seriousness they demand.
Composition of the Court and procedural notes
The judgment was delivered by the Fifth Section of the Court, sitting as a Chamber. The Chamber was composed of President María Elósegui, and Judges Kateřina Šimáčková, Andreas Zünd, Diana Sârcu, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Sébastien Biancheri, and Nicholas Emiliou. The Section Registrar was Victor Soloveytchik. The Chamber deliberated in private on 9 June 2026 and adopted the judgment on that date.
The applicant's name was not disclosed, in accordance with the Court's decision on anonymity. The Government of the Czech Republic were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Konůpka, of the Ministry of Justice.
As noted in the judgment, it will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, and may be subject to editorial revision. The document as reproduced here was prepared by the Registry and does not bind the Court.
Conclusion
The judgment in S.T. v. the Czech Republic addresses a cluster of serious concerns arising from the death of a Roma man following a police prone-restraint intervention. The Court found substantive violations of Articles 2 and 3 on account of the manner in which the restraint was conducted — including the duration of the prone position, the kneeling by an officer on S.T.'s body, the failure to provide timely medical assistance, and the inadequacy of the domestic legal framework and training on prone restraint. It found procedural violations of both articles on account of an investigation that lacked independence, failed to examine contradictory evidence comprehensively, omitted any meaningful forensic engagement with the dangers of prone restraint, and excluded the applicant from effective participation. It further found a violation of Article 14 read with Articles 2 and 3, on the basis that the authorities made no genuine effort to investigate whether racial bias, including institutional racism, had influenced the officers' conduct toward S.T.
Taken together, the findings illustrate the multi-layered nature of the state's obligations under the Convention when a person dies following a law enforcement intervention: the obligation to regulate and train, the obligation to act proportionately, the obligation to investigate effectively and independently, and the obligation to confront the possibility of discriminatory motivation. Each of these obligations was found to have been breached in the circumstances of this case.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- CASE OF S.T. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications