FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9286/16 Nada ŽAGAR against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 October 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay, President, Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 9286/16) against Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 February 2016 by a Croatian national, Ms Nada Žagar, who was born in 1971 and lives in Poreč (“the applicant”) who was represented by Ms A. Zaharija , a lawyer practising in Rovinj;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the applicant’s right to respect for her home to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The applicant lives in a flat on the ground floor of a private house, which is owned by her and her husband. At the relevant time a certain H.V. was renting the flat on the upper floor of the same house.

2. Following a shooting in the nearby town on 9 March 2008, a search warrant was issued in respect of H.V.’s flat. The police broke into the upper floor flat of the applicant’s house using a battering ram, which caused considerable noise and damaged the door and the installations of the flat. During the operation, the applicant was alone in the ground floor flat and very scared because she thought that a “mafia clash” related to the earlier shooting was taking place outside.

3. In 2010 the applicant and her husband instituted civil proceedings against the State seeking damages in connection with the actions of the police of 9 March 2008. By a final judgment of 13 July 2015, the Pula County Court upheld the first-instance judgment finding that the force used by the police when breaking into the flat had been excessive and thus unlawful and awarding them pecuniary damage in the amount of approximately 3,600 euros (EUR). At the same time, the court dismissed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage for fear and anguish stating that any person would suffer certain discomfort and distress in relation to such police intervention, which may develop into acute stress, as, apparently, had been the applicant’s case. However, such stress development was not related to the unlawful manner in which the search had been carried out and thus did not justify an award of non-pecuniary damage.

4. The applicant complained that the refusal to award her non-pecuniary damage had violated her right to respect for home and private life.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

5. The Government argued that the flat that the police had broken into had not been the applicant’s home at the material time and that she had, in any event, lost her victim status under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court does not find it necessary to rule on that preliminary objection, since the present case is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

6. Firstly, the domestic courts acknowledged that the manner in which the police search had been carried out had been unlawful and awarded the applicant and her husband EUR 3,600 for the pecuniary damage sustained to their property. In relation to this, they have consequently been compensated.

7. Furthermore, the Court does not find any reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Pula County Court that any person would suffer certain discomfort and stress related to a police intervention of forceful entry. In this respect, the Court notes that the forceful entry was not into the applicant’s flat but that above hers. Accordingly, the Court considers that the fear and anguish suffered by the applicant, as understandable as they may be, were not such as to require the State to compensate her for any non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained (see, mutatis mutandis , ChiÅŸ v. Romania (dec.), no. 55396/07 , §§ 31 and 35, 9 September 2014).

8. Therefore, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

9. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 November 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay Deputy Registrar President