Legal boundary: a Slovak court convicted Juhász of murder and a weapons offence. It did not adjudicate a racist motive. The later European Court judgment did not retry him; it found that the state failed in its duty to investigate whether racial hatred played a role.
The attack in Hurbanovo
Shortly after 10 a.m. on 16 June 2012, municipal police officer Milan Juhász drove to a residential property in Hurbanovo while off duty. According to the facts summarized by the European Court of Human Rights, he entered the yard and began shooting at members of the Lakatoš family without speaking. The firearm had been acquired illegally.
Kristián Lakatoš’s father, brother and brother-in-law were killed. Kristián and his wife, Žaneta Lakatošová, were seriously injured. Contemporary reporting identified the dead as men aged 44, 19 and 24. The survivors were both 26. This page limits physical detail because it adds no necessary understanding to the legal record.
The attack did not arise from a documented personal dispute with the family. Relatives later told investigators that they knew of no conflict between Juhász and the household. The absence of a known dispute became important when investigators considered why he had selected the property.
Surrender and immediate investigation
Police located Juhász about an hour after the shooting at the home of Hurbanovo’s mayor, where he threatened suicide. After negotiations, he surrendered. He was detained that day, and investigators questioned him, relatives, colleagues and other witnesses.
During questioning, Juhász said that he had gone to the home to “deal with” Roma people and had thought about a “radical solution.” Those statements are recorded in the European Court’s official case summary. They are evidence that required examination; they are not presented here as a domestic judicial finding of motive.
Two psychologists assessed him. They concluded that a temporary mental disorder had substantially reduced his responsibility at the time of the attack. They did not identify a clear immediate motive, but referred to his continuing frustration with public-order problems involving Roma people and to a prior incident in which he had acted aggressively toward Roma boys.
Charge, trial and final sentence
In December 2012, Juhász was charged with premeditated first-degree murder and carrying a concealed weapon. The indictment treated the attack on five people as an aggravating factor. It did not charge a racially motivated offence or discuss racial hatred as an aggravating factor.
The case was heard by the Specialized Criminal Court in March 2013. The survivors’ lawyer attempted to question witnesses about a possible racist motive. Because the couple participated as civil parties, the court limited them to questions connected to damages and did not allow that line of questioning to continue.
On 27 March 2013, the court found Juhász guilty. It imposed nine years’ imprisonment in a maximum-security facility, compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment and three years of protective supervision. The sentence was reduced because experts found diminished responsibility. Both the prosecutor and defence waived appeal, so the judgment became final.
The ruling took the form of a simplified judgment without legal reasoning. That procedure was available because both sides waived appeal. It meant that the final criminal judgment did not explain the evidentiary or legal treatment of motive.
A question the criminal process did not answer
The distinction between proof of the killings and proof of motive is central. Juhász’s responsibility for the shootings was established. A racial motive was not. Yet the record contained information that, in the European Court’s view, made a serious and sustained inquiry necessary.
The early investigation did ask Juhász and witnesses about racism, and colleagues and relatives denied that he was biased against Roma people. The problem identified later was not that authorities ignored the issue entirely. It was that they did not pursue the indicators thoroughly, test the links suggested by experts or carry the issue into the indictment and trial.
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance made the same distinction in its 2014 country report. It noted the nine-year sentence and compulsory psychiatric treatment, while stating that racist motivation had not been taken into account during the investigation and prosecution.
Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia
Žaneta Lakatošová and Kristián Lakatoš applied to the European Court of Human Rights in December 2015. They argued that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into whether the assault on their family had racial overtones and that their procedural position prevented meaningful participation on that issue.
On 11 December 2018, a seven-judge Chamber ruled unanimously that Slovakia had violated Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination, read together with Article 2, the right to life. The Court emphasized that racist violence requires special vigilance and a vigorous official response.
The judgment identified several missed lines of inquiry: the earlier aggressive incident involving Roma boys, the psychological evidence linking Juhász’s work frustration to Roma public-order issues, his own statements about “dealing with” Roma, and the absence of any reasoned assessment in the indictment or final judgment.
The Court did not declare that racial hatred had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Its finding was procedural: credible indicators placed a duty on the authorities to do what was reasonable to uncover the truth, and that duty was not fulfilled. It awarded each applicant €25,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
Why the case remains significant
The Hurbanovo case has two separate legal endpoints. The criminal case established who committed the shootings and imposed a final sentence. The Strasbourg case established that the state response was incomplete because it failed to investigate possible discriminatory motivation with the rigor required by the European Convention.
Keeping those endpoints separate avoids two distortions. It does not erase the conviction by calling the entire case “unsolved,” and it does not describe the matter as fully resolved when a binding human-rights judgment found a major investigative failure.
The victims’ ethnic identity is relevant because the possible motive and the state’s investigative duty were the subject of the European Court case. It is not a license to reduce the family to a category. The record here centers the three people killed, the two survivors and the legal questions that followed.
Verified timeline
- 16 June 2012: Juhász enters the Lakatoš family property in Hurbanovo, kills three relatives and seriously injures Žaneta and Kristián Lakatoš; he later surrenders.
- December 2012: prosecutors charge him with premeditated murder and a weapons offence; the indictment does not address a racist motive.
- 27 March 2013: the Specialized Criminal Court convicts him and imposes nine years, psychiatric treatment and supervision; the judgment becomes final.
- 2014: ECRI reports that possible racist motivation was not taken into account in the investigation and prosecution.
- 21 December 2015: the surviving couple lodge their application in Strasbourg.
- 11 December 2018: the European Court unanimously finds a violation of Article 14 read with Article 2.
- Current classification: offender convicted; possible hate motive not adjudicated; state investigative failure established internationally.
Frequently asked questions
Was Milan Juhász convicted?
Yes. His conviction and nine-year prison sentence became final after both prosecution and defence waived appeal.
Why was the sentence nine years?
The court reduced the sentence because psychiatric experts found that his responsibility had been substantially diminished at the time of the attack.
Did a court prove a racist motive?
No. The domestic criminal judgment did not adjudicate that motive. The European Court found that authorities failed to investigate the possibility effectively.
What was the European Court violation?
A unanimous Chamber found a violation of the discrimination prohibition together with the right to life because powerful indicators of possible racism were not properly examined.
Why is the file in the adjudicated section?
The offender and criminal responsibility were established by a final judgment, even though the motive inquiry remained legally deficient.
Sources and source-quality review
- European Court of Human Rights — Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. SlovakiaOfficial judgment · application no. 655/16 · facts, domestic proceedings and unanimous Convention finding.
- European Court of Human Rights — judgment press release11 December 2018 · official plain-language summary of facts, procedure and decision.
- European Commission against Racism and Intolerance — fifth report on Slovakia2014 Council of Europe report · sentence and omission of racist motivation from investigation and prosecution.
- European Roma Rights Centre — letter on the Hurbanovo shooting22 June 2012 · contemporaneous victim counts and concerns about an impartial motive investigation.
- TASR via Teraz.sk — five-year case review16 June 2017 · Slovak-language chronology, surrender, psychiatric evidence and final sentence.
Editorial review: the criminal conviction, possible motive and Strasbourg violation are described as separate findings. Statements made during questioning are attributed to the official judgment. No unverified motive is presented as fact.