ČOLOVIĆ v. Serbia
On September 9, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) rendered, and on September 30 of the same year, announced the judgment in the caseColovic against Serbia, number 2806/20.
It's a verdictbroughtthree-member Board.
The case refers to the non-awarding of compensation for non-material damage to the applicant for the established violation of the right to freedom and security. The court found that the applicant's right from Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention was violated, which anyone who was arrested or deprived of liberty in violation of the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention guarantees enforceable right to compensation. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
On March 10, 2016, the applicant was heard in the presence of a defense attorney in the official premises of the PU in Užice due to the existence of grounds for suspicion that he committed the criminal offense of fraud from Article 208, paragraph 1 of the RS CC.
By decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications in Užice Ku. LS 30/16 of March 10, 2016, the applicant was ordered to be detained for up to 48 hours, which is to be counted from March 10, 2016, from 4:00 p.m.
Against the detention order, the applicant's lawyer filed an appeal to the Basic Court in Užice through the Public Prosecutor's Office in Užice. Police officers received the complaint on March 10, 2016 at 9:00 p.m., since they previously informed the applicant's defense attorney that the appeal is being received by the Basic Court in Užice, about which an Official Note was made.
In the Official Note of the MUP PU in Užice - Department of Criminal Police No. 03/40/1/2 dated March 10, 2016, it was stated that on March 10, 2016, at 8:40 p.m., the defense attorney of the PU in Užice, Radisav Čolović, a lawyer from Užice, I. T., addressed the police officers and asked them to receive an appeal against the detention decision; that the police officers informed him that the said appeal is being received by the Basic Court in Užice; that the president of the Basic Court in Užice, B.J., was informed about all of the above, who stated that the police officers should receive the above-mentioned complaint and deliver it to the Basic Court in Užice in the morning hours; that the head of the Criminal Police Department, M.R., was also informed about everything, who declared that he was acting according to the oral order of the judge; that on March 10, 2016, at 9:00 p.m., police officers received the aforementioned complaint.
The appeal was received in the Basic Court in Uzice on March 11, 2016 at 08:15. By decision of the Basic Court in Uzice Kppr. 75/16 of March 11, 2016, the defense attorney's appeal and the decision of the Basic Court in Užice Kppr. were rejected as unfounded. 75/16 of March 11, 2016 was dispatched from that court on March 11, 2016 at 10:50 a.m., and the applicant's counsel received it on the same day at 11:55 a.m.
On March 11, 2016, at 3:00 p.m., the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Internal Affairs in Užice issued a decision of the LS. 30/16 by which on March 11, 2016, at 19:00, the relevant detention decision was revoked.
The Constitutional Court decidedUž-2900/2016 from July 4, 2019 adoptedconstitutional appeal of the applicant, determined that the applicant's right guaranteed by Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia was violated and ordered that the decision be published in the "Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia". The Constitutional Court did not award non-material damage compensation for the established violation of rights.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on December 20, 2019.
In the petition, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to freedom and security from Article 5, para. 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) and the right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, because his appeal against the decision on detention was not decided within the legally prescribed time limit and because the Constitutional Court did not award him compensation for non-material damages due to the established violation of rights from Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Also, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 of the Convention.
THE DECISION THE COURT
Referring to his recent practice (verdictRadonjić and Romić against Serbia,No. 43674/16, paragraph 49.) that non-material damage must be awarded in cases of this type, and bearing in mind the fact that in this particular case the Constitutional Court did not award the applicant any compensation for the established violation of rights, the Court concluded that the determination of the violation of rights, in itself, does not represent adequate compensation, but that it was necessary to determine compensation for non-material damage in the appropriate monetary amount.
Therefore, the Court found that the applicant's right from Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention was violated.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicant the amount of 800 euros as compensation for non-material damage, and to pay him the amount of 1200 euros as costs and expenses.