Lakatos and Other
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 3. December 2024. brought, and 14. January 2025. published a verdict in the caseLakatoš et al via Serbia, No. 43411/17.
The verdict isdoneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the alleged abuse of the Fourth Applicant by the Police and the absence of any investigation in this regard, as well as the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings initiated against all four applicants before the Constitutional Court. The Court found a violation of the material and process aspect of banning torture due to the treatment of police officers towards him and the lack of effective investigation on this issue. In terms of all applicants, the Court determined the right trial due to the consequence of the conviction at extended recognitions of two applicants, as well as a violation of the right to trial due to excessive duration before the Constitutional Court. |
Circumstances Case
The fourth applicant was arrested in the night between 5. and 6. November 2007. years, while the other applicants were arrested next morning, after several robbers.
The Fourth Applicant claimed to be beaten during the arrest and in the police station, which was allegedly pressure on him who resulted in his recognition of the next morning. He admitted that he was driving a car and that the applicants had been driven to the houses in which they committed robbers. The first applicant also admitted that he committed several robbers with other applicants.
Police officers are 7. November 2007. He wrote internal reports in which they stated that the Fourth Applicant has resisted during the arrest, and that they had to apply force against him, which caused several easier injuries. They also stated that the fourth applicant did not seek medical assistance.
On the same day, the Fourth Applicant complained to the investigating judge that he was beaten. He said the recognition was extorted, and then he pulled the same. It did the first applicant the next day.
The investigating judge is 13. November 2007 he ordered that the doctor's examination over the fourth applicant. In the medical report from 22. September 2008. it was stated that violations were observed 13. November 2007. years the result of repeated application of mechanical force.
The Fourth Applicant is 31. July 2009 submitted a criminal complaint, claiming that the police were abused. The public prosecutor rejected the application 6. December 2010. years due to lack of evidence. It was not confirmed that the Fourth Applicant was informed of this Decision of the Public Prosecutor.
All the applicants guilty were guilty and convicted of several crimes of robberies by judgment of the Venior Court in Novi Sad from 11. November 2011, which was confirmed by the Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad KŽ1. 539/12 from 4. June 2012. years. The second applicant was also convicted of causing serious bodily injuries to the police officer as he resisted arrest. The verdict is based, among other things, in recognitions first and fourth applicants. November 2007. years.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of criminal proceedings in front of the High Court in Novi Sad in case K. 68/11, as well as the treatment of other state bodies, the applicants were 9. August 2012. submitted a constitutional court constitutional complaint.
The Constitutional Court is 9. May 2017 passed the decisionUK-6602/2012 He found that by accepting the recognition of the first and fourth applicant was not the right to a fair trial of all applicants. The Constitutional Court found that the Fourth Applicant has been violated in an effective investigation on his alleged abuse, while the constitutional complaint in the part of the alleged abuse by police officers as untimely, assessing that it was not submitted within 30 days from the day of alleged abuse.
Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures
The applicants submitted the application to the Court 29. May 2017 years.
The applicants complained of a violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), because they were convicted on the criminal proceedings Police brutality, as well as because the proceedings before the Constitutional Court last lasted for their constitutional complain. Also, the Fourth Applicant complained about the violation of torture referred to in Article 3. Convention, due to abuse by the police and absence of an effective investigation on this issue.
Decision Court
• Article 3 of the Convention
The Court rejected the government's objection that complaints were fourth the applicant with a violation of banning the torture of untimely (a material aspect of Article 3. of the Convention) referring to the verdictZlicic v. Serbia, and declared them admissible. The Court found that the use of force was focused on the Fourth Applicant, because the Government did not provide evidence that the physical force applied to him necessary, or because it did not provide an explanation of disagreement The injury stated by the police 7. November 2007 years and those documented in medical reports from 13. November 2007 and 22. September 2008. years.
In relation to complaints on the fourth An applicant not an effective investigation into the injuries inflicted by police officers (a process aspect of Article 3. Convention),The Court found that criminal proceedings against the applicant is not adequate for identifying and punishing possible perpetrators of the applicant's abuse. The Court pointed out that they specify the competent authorities on any abuse should be investigated ex officio. Since the self-initiated special investigation did not occur, as well as that the criminal complaint of the fourth applicant was rejected without informing the applicant, the Court found that an effective investigation was not implemented.
Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the material and process aspect of Article 3. Convention due to inhuman and degrading behavior towards the applicant and not implementing an effective investigation in this regard.
- Article 6 paragraph 1. Convention
Although the government claimed that the criminal proceedings against the applicants did not represent the only or key evidence on which the judgment, the Court rejected these claims, stating that their acceptance would be contrary to the well-established by the practice of the court (Hajnal v. Serbia andStanimirovic v. Serbia).
In relation to the applicants' complaints that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasted long, the Court found that the case was partially complex, but that the applicants did not contribute to the overall duration of the procedure. The Court assessed that the duration of the 4-year-old procedure and 9 months are over, with reference to the subject Milovanovic against Serbia.
Given the present, the Court found that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, which was also conducted against the applicants in a reasonable time before the Constitutional Court.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 3,500.00 euros on the first and third applicant, and the fourth Applicant pays the amount of the first and second and second applicant from the At 4,665.00 euros, the third submitter of 10,505.00 euros and the fourth Applicant of 6,985.00 euros.