VESKOVIĆ v. Serbia
On September 2, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) passed, and on September 23, 2025, announced the judgment in the caseVesković against Serbia, number 30741/22.
It's a verdictbroughtthree-member Board.
The case refers to the duration of the applicant's detention and the reasons for detention given by domestic courts, which were allegedly abstract and repetitive, as well as the duration of the decision-making process before the Constitutional Court on the applicant's constitutional appeals related to detention. The court found a violation of the right to freedom and security due to the length of the applicant's detention.a ratedisthat there is no need to consider the applicant's complaint regarding the duration of the decision-making procedure before the Constitutional Court on constitutional appeals related to detention. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant has been in custody since July 3, 2018, when he was extradited to Serbia, due to the existence of a well-founded suspicion that he committed the crimes of aggravated murder and illegal sale, possession and trafficking of weapons and explosive materials (in co-perpetration).
The applicant was ordered to be detained by the decision of the judge for the preliminary proceedings of the High Court in Belgrade Kpp. 132/18 of April 2, 2018 for the reasons prescribed by the provisions of Article 211, paragraph 1, point 1) and 3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, i.e. due to circumstances that indicated a risk of escape and due to the risk that the applicant would repeat the criminal offense in a short period of time. At the time of filing the petition, his detention was extended a total of 35 times, for the same reasons.
According to the data in the application, the applicant filed seven constitutional appeals against the decision on the extension of custody to the Constitutional Court (May 4, 2019, August 7, 2020, June 11, 2021, November 26, 2021, January 28, 2022, April 8, 2022, and May 26, 2022). Only one decision of the Constitutional Court (Už-7987/2020 of January 24, 2023) was submitted with the petition.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on June 16, 2022.
In the petition, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to freedom and security from Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), due to the length of detention and the repeated (repetitive) reasons for detention and the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court recalled the general principles concerning the reasons for detention and its duration, which were summarized in the caseRadonjić and Romić against Serbia (No. 43674/16, paragraphs 61-70, dated April 4, 2023, with further references).
Furthermore, the Court found that the applicant's detention began on July 3, 2018, when he was extradited to Serbia, and ended on June 10, 2024, when he was placed under house arrest, and therefore lasted five years, 11 months and seven days. The court noted that the competent courts in their rulings on the extension of the applicant's detention originally referred to the existence of a well-founded suspicion that he had committed the criminal acts charged against him, and to the risk of flight due to the fact that he was unavailable to the domestic authorities after the critical event and that he was arrested in a foreign country four months later on the basis of a warrant,as well as the existence of special circumstances that he will repeat the criminal offense in a short period of time, and that the competent court determined on March 1, 2024 that the basis for the detention of the applicant from point 3) of Article 211, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code has ceased to exist.
The court assessed that the reasons presented by the domestic authorities are certainly relevant.
However, in the specific circumstances of the specific case, the Court did not examine whether they were sufficient, because in any case the domestic authorities did not show "special diligence" in conducting the criminal proceedings. This is because domestic courts scheduled a total of 56 hearings for the main trial, of which 31 were postponed, mainly for various procedural reasons that could not be attributed to the applicant. Moreover, the Court found that the applicant's trial had to be restarted five times because the president of the panel and/or the composition of the panel changed.
The Court did not accept the Government's allegations that the complexity of the case and the nature of the criminal offenses charged against him justify the duration of the applicant's detention, judging that there were no exceptional circumstances that could justify such a long detention in this case, which lasted five years, 11 months and seven days.
Accordingly, the Court determined that there had been a violation of Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the Convention due to the length of the applicant's detention.
The Court did not consider the applicant's complaints that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court to challenge the legality of his detention were not in accordance with the requirement of "speed" established in Article 5, Paragraph 4 of the Convention, judging that, in the circumstances of the specific case, there was no need for this.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 3,000 euros to the applicant as compensation for non-material damage, and to pay the amount of 4,070 euros to the applicant as costs and expenses.