STALOVIĆ v. Serbia

On January 27, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) rendered, and on February 17 of the same year, announced its judgment in the caseStalović v. Serbia, number 35786/22.

It's a verdictbroughtthree-member Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

On April 21, 2017, the applicants (hereinafter: the applicants) reported the theft of a passenger car from the yard of a family house in the village of Pruzatovac, Municipality of Mladenovac to the police officers of the Mladenovac Police Station (hereinafter: PS Mladenovac). There were personal documents and money in the amount of 3,200 euros in the car. Police inspector Z.M. came to the scene. accompanied by N.N. colleagues. After inspecting the scene and taking statements, police inspector Z.M. determined that the owner of the vehicle is the second applicant who, as a foreign citizen, has the obligation to report residence in the Republic of Serbia, which she did not do, and directed the applicants to come to PS Mladenovac to register residence and formally submit a report of car theft.

The applicants went to the Mladenovac police station on the same day between 9-9:30 a.m., accompanied by a relative of the first applicant, where they were informed that they should go to the PU for the City of Belgrade - Criminal Police Directorate, to a special department that deals with car thefts. The inspectors who were on the scene that morning in the village of Pruzhatovac, together with the applicants, drove to the Directorate of the Criminal Police in Belgrade, in a car with police markings, where they arrived around noon.

After arriving, the applicants were told that they would give their statements separately, so the second applicant did so first, and then the first applicant. It turned out that the applicants were subjected to a polygraph test, during which, according to their claims, they were subjected to insults and accusations of lying in  regarding the reported car theft.

After the polygraph test was completed, the first applicant was brought into a room where there were eight police officers who took turns physically abusing and threatening him. The first applicant claimed that the police inspectors cursed at him "gypsy mother", slapped him and kicked him, put a plastic bag over his head so that he could not breathe, and one of the inspectors put a serviced pistol to his hand and threatened to shoot him if he did not confess, noting that this would be a memory he would have for the rest of his life. He also stated that the police officers threatened him with the seizure of the children, girls aged 2 and 5, by the Center for Social Work, who would be placed in an institution for the care of children without parental care.

At the same time, another applicant was interrogated in another room, who claimed that she was subjected to psychological harassment in the form of intimidation that her children would be taken away, as well as threats and insults. The police inspector who interrogated her threatened her, allegedly with 30 days' detention, if she did not confess, stating that the first applicant, her husband, had confessed and signed everything and that he was married to her "only because of the papers" and that she served him as "a mask for an organized gang".

The applicants were returned around 20:00 to PS Mladenovac by the same police officers who brought them to Belgrade. The second applicant states that her husband, here the first applicant, had a swollen face and bruises. In PS Mladenovac, the applicants were kept until 10:00 p.m., after which they were released.

After leaving PS Mladenovac, the applicants immediately went to the Mladenovac Health Center. The first applicant was examined by a doctor at 22:35 and on that occasion his injuries were diagnosed. The report states that the applicant did not have personal documents with him, that he claimed to have been beaten by an inspector in Belgrade, and that he reported the injuries to the police. The doctor gave him a referral to the Neurosurgery Clinic within the Clinical Center in Belgrade and was offered transportation by ambulance, which the applicant refused.

The next day, on April 22, 2017, in the morning hours, the first applicant was examined in the neurosurgery clinic, and on that occasion head injuries were found. Two days later, on April 24, 2017, the first applicant received an official note from PS Mladenovac number 41/17 about the reported car theft, as well as a note regarding the issuance of new personal documents.

On April 26, 2017, the first applicant went to a psychiatric examination at a private clinic in Belgrade and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), caused by the events of April 21, 2017.

On May 9, 2017, the applicants submitted a criminal complaint to the First Basic Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade (hereinafter: First OJT) against four N.N. police officers, inspectors of the Directorate of Criminal Police - Service for the fight against organized crime responsible for international smuggling of stolen motor vehicles at the Police Administration for the City of Belgrade, one N.N. an inspector named "S.", an inspector named "R.", as well as an inspector from PS Mladenovac, for the criminal offense of abuse and torture from Article 137, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code and the criminal offense of unlawful deprivation of liberty from Article 132, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. On the occasion of the aforementioned criminal complaint, the First OJT created the case Kt. 2745/18.

First, on May 18 and September 15, 2017, the OJT sent to the Police Administration for the City of Belgrade - the Department for the Control of Legality in Work, a request to collect the necessary information in order to establish the identity of all police officers who acted in the case of the applicants on April 21, 2017, as well as the interviews conducted and all allegations from the submitted criminal report.

By the decision of the First OJT Kt. 2745/2018 of May 17, 2018, the applicants' criminal complaint was dismissed, with the explanation that after the evidentiary actions taken, it was determined that the applicants' allegations were not sufficiently supported by evidence. According to the applicants, the First OJT in Belgrade did not comment at all regarding their allegations from the criminal complaint, which refer to the criminal offense of unlawful deprivation of liberty from Article 132, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code.

On August 8, 2018, the applicants, through their attorney, objected to the aforementioned decision. The objection was rejected by the decision of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade Ktpo. 587/18 of August 29, 2018. In the explanation, it was stated that an inspection of the files of the First OJT established that there is no evidence of illegal behavior by police officers, as well as that the first-instance decision is legal and correct.

On October 6, 2018, the applicants filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the aforementioned decisions of the First OJT and the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, as well as against the actions of the police officers of the Criminal Police Department in Belgrade and the police officers of the Mladenovac Police Station on April 21, 2017. In the constitutional appeal, they pointed out violations of the right to inviolability of physical and mental integrity, the right to freedom and security, the special rights of persons deprived of liberty, the right to a fair trial and the right to equal legal protection of rights and to a legal remedy, from Art. 25, 27, 28, 32 and 36 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, as well as the principles from Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, the applicants pointed out the violation of the rights from Art. 3, 5 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention.

The Constitutional Court made a decision on October 28, 2021Už-11271/2018 by which he rejected as unfounded the constitutional appeal of the applicants in relation to the violation of the right to inviolability of mental and physical integrity from Article 25 of the Constitution, while in the remaining part he rejected the constitutional appeal.

While the proceedings before the First OJT were ongoing, on August 1, 2017, the applicants, through their attorney, submitted a lawsuit to the High Court in Belgrade for protection against discrimination and compensation for damages against the Republic of Serbia - Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter: MUP).

With the verdict P. 4506/17 of June 1, 2020, the High Court in Belgrade accepted the claim of the applicants and determined the MUP's discriminatory treatment towards them, contrary to Article 12 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. The MUP is obliged, based on Article 200 of the Law on Obligations, to pay the first applicant the amount of 200,000 dinars, and the second applicant the amount of 100,000 dinars in the name of compensation for non-material damages due to the violation of personal rights caused by discriminatory treatment. Also, in the name of compensation for non-material damage due to physical pain, the first applicant was awarded the amount of 200,000 dinars, while the second applicant was awarded the amount of 100,000 dinars for the fear suffered. In the name of the costs of the procedure, the MUP was ordered to pay the amount of 269,000 dinars.

The aforementioned judgment was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Belgrade, in judgment Gž-5882/20 of December 17, 2020.

COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicants submitted a petition to the Court on July 11, 2022.

In the petition, they complained about the violation of the right to the prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment from Article 3 of the Convention and the violation of the general principle of prohibition of discrimination from Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, claiming that they were exposed to torture and inhumane treatment by police officers of the Police Department for the City of Belgrade - Criminal Police Department and PS Mladenovac, after they were on April 21, 2017 reported the theft of a passenger car from the yard of a family house in the village of Pruzatovac, Municipality of Mladenovac.

THE DECISION THE COURT

• Article 3 of the Convention

The Court did not accept the Government's objection that the applicants cannot be considered "victims" in the sense of Article 34 of the Convention, because the civil courts recognized and awarded them compensation for the violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Namely, the Court noted that the civil courts established that the applicants were abused in the manner described in the petition, while the Government claimed that these findings were based only on the statements of the applicants. The domestic courts also took into account two expert medical opinions that connected the abuse with the pain and fear suffered, as well as decisions on the dismissal of the criminal charges. The Court finds that challenging the findings of the domestic courts contradicts the claims that the applicants do not enjoy the status of "victims".

Additionally, the Court assessed that there is no evidence to support the Constitutional Court's assumption that the first applicant sustained injuries after leaving the police station, which is contrary to the standard of proof applied in comparable cases under Article 3 of the Convention. The court gave more weight to the medical documentation, since it did not have access to surveillance camera footage.

The court found it undisputed that the second applicant was subjected to interrogation in the Police Department for the City of Belgrade, that her interrogation was "informal", without records and protective measures against abuse, which undermines the credibility of the claim that there was no abuse. 

Regarding the complaint about the lack of an effective investigation, the Court stated that the competent authorities did not react in a timely manner after being informed of the first applicant's injuries and delayed taking any steps until the applicants filed a criminal complaint, and that it took them almost eight months to hear the applicants and over four months to question the five police officers.

The court noted that the investigation was delegated to police officers who are hierarchically superior to those involved in the subject of the investigation, and therefore assessed that it was not independent.

Furthermore, the Court assessed that the investigation lacked thoroughness. This is because the competent authorities did not listen to all the police officers who were present during the interrogation of the applicants, nor the father of the first applicant who saw them shortly after leaving PS Mladenovac, as well as because the medical documentation related to the first applicant was not taken into account despite the fact that his father was present at the examination and confirmed his identity. The court assessed that the decision to ignore that documentation because the first applicant did not have an identity document seems unfounded, especially since he reported the theft of his passport that day.

Finally, the Court stated that the decision to dismiss the criminal complaint was based on the footage from surveillance cameras that showed the applicants leaving the premises of PS Mladenovac without visible injuries, as well as on the statement of the first applicant that there were no complaints about the actions of police officers. However, the first applicant later withdrew that statement. When it comes to the footage from the surveillance cameras, it was established that the first applicant suffered minor injuries that may not have been visible on the cameras, and that the applicants left the station at night. The mental abuse of the second applicant would not have left any physical traces, and her allegations were not even investigated.

In these circumstances, the court found the authorities' reference to the camera footage and the above-mentioned statement of the first applicant to be unjustified, taking into account the available medical evidence.

Although the Court accepted that the total duration of the investigation was not excessive and that the authorities managed to identify the five involved police officers, this was not enough for the obligation of an effective investigation established by Article 3 of the Convention to be considered fulfilled.

Since no convincing alternative explanation was offered for the first applicant's injuries, and bearing in mind the findings of the domestic civil courts and the deficiencies in the investigation, the Court accepted the second applicant's claims of abuse as proven.

Following the above, the Court determined that there wasviolations of the prohibition of torture from Article 3 of the Convention in the procedural and material sense.

• Article 14 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention

The applicants complained that the abuse and deficiencies in the investigation and the constitutional appeal procedure were the result of institutional racism within the domestic authorities due to the Roma origin of the first applicant and the marriage of the second applicant to him.

The court, taking into account its findings regarding the victim status of the applicants in terms of Article 3 of the Convention, as well as the fact that they were exposed to intentional abuse by the police, determined that the applicants retain their victim status within the discrimination complaints.

Furthermore, the Court noted that civil courts have already established that discriminatory attitudes were a causal factor in the abuse of the applicants.

According to the above,The Court found that there was a violation of Article 14 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention in its material part.

The court pointed out that the obligation under Art. 3 and 14 of the Convention to investigate the possible causal link between racist attitudes and ill-treatment suffered by the applicants at the hands of the police is well established in the Court's practice. From the case file, it is clear that the authorities did not investigate the claim.

In light of the above,The Court found that there was a violation of Article 14 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural part.

• Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention and Article 14 in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention

Referring to Article 1 of Protocol 12 to the Convention, the applicants repeated the complaints that had already been considered in accordance with Art. 3 and 14 of the Convention. These complaints were allowed, but the Court judged that there was no need for their separate examination.

When it comes to complaints based on Article 14 in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention regarding alleged institutional racism within domestic authorities, the Court, bearing in mind the facts of the case, observations of the parties to the dispute and findings under Article 14 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention, assessed that there is no need to examine this complaint separately.

FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)

The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicants an amount of 3,750 euros each as compensation for non-material damages.