Communicated on 11 July 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 31549/18 Daliborka Å PADIJER against Montenegro lodged on 27 June 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns national authorities ’ alleged failure to protect the applicant from mobbing, and a lack of an effective remedy in that regard.

The applicant worked as a prison guard in Podgorica. After having reported some of her colleagues for indecent behaviour at work, she started being insulted at work, her superiors told her she would be degraded (which would appear to have been the case), and her car was damaged. She instituted civil proceedings against the employer, but the courts ruled against her, considering that the events complained of did not amount to mobbing as they were not repeated once a week for six months. She also reported the damage on the car to the police, and submitted a video footage of it made by a camera on a neighbouring building. It appears that the police informed the State Prosecutor thereof, but that there have been no further actions in this regard. In the course of the civil proceedings the applicant was also physically attacked (outside of her work). She reported this to the police, and attached a medical report (noting a hematoma on the back of her neck, pain in the left shoulder and significantly reduced mobility of left arm), but it appears that there was no follow up. The applicant developed health problems and the doctors assessed that she entirely lost the ability to work. She retired in March 2016 as a disabled person at the age of 37.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, having regard to the States ’ positive obligation under Article 8 to provide procedural protection from ill-treatment even when inflicted by private persons (see, mutatis mutandis , Is aković Vidović v. Serbia , no. 41694/07, §§ 58-60, 1 July 2014; Sandra Janković v. Croatia , no. 38478/05, §§ 44-46, and the authorities cited therein; and Milićević v. Montenegro , no. 27821/16, § 62, 6 November 2018)?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. The Government are further invited to submit to the Court the following:

(a) the entire case-file of the disciplinary, and other proceedings (if any), conducted against the prison guards whom the applicant reported for indecent behaviour;

(b) inform the Court if there was any follow up to the applicant ’ s reports to the police in respect of her car having been damaged and her being attacked; if so, the Government are invited to submit all the documents in that regard;

(c) submit all the decisions as to what position in the prison the applicant covered as of 2012 until she retired, as well as the requirements for those positions pursuant to the systematisation in force at the time;

(d) the judgments of the Court of First Instance in Podgorica P. br. 768/11 of 26 November 2012, and P. br. 2226/11 of 10 May 2013.