Communicated on 5 April 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 16943/17 ANTE BEUS against Croatia lodged on 27 February 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ante Beus , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Split. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Bezbradica Jelavić , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant, who is seen as a prominent figure on the local LGBT scene, was subjected to several homophobic attacks by groups of hooligans. Such attacks took place in June 2013 and then on 27 February, 16 March and 24 April 2014. They were all reported to the police.

By a letter of 20 October 2014 the police replied to the applicant explaining that they had been unable to identify the perpetrators of the attacks in June 2013 and February 2014.

In the meantime, on 10 May 2014 the applicant and his friend were attacked by three assailants who approached them and made a number of insulting remarks concerning people of homosexual orientation. The applicant was hit twice on the head and once on the body. The available medical documentation confirms that he had haematoma and swellings on his face.

The police were immediately informed of the incident. Police officers inspected the scene of the attack and interviewed a number of individuals who found themselves in the vicinity of the incident.

A police report of 10 May 2014 indicates that an individual, who wanted to stay anonymous due to a fear of reprisal, explained that at the place where the applicant was attacked he had seen a group of young people from the neighbourhood among whom he knew F.Z., M.M. and a certain B. The report does not indicate the name of the witness in question.

On 12 May 2014 the applicant recognised, in an identification parade, F.Z. as one of the attackers with ninety percent certainty, and T.B. and M.M. with 100 percent certainty. The applicant ’ s friend recognised with 100 percent certainty M.M. as one of the attackers.

On 11 June 2015 the applicant reported to the police that he had been subjected to two further attacks. On one occasion, he had been threatened in connection with his complaints made against M.M.

On 24 July 2014 the police indicted M.M. and F.Z. in the Split Minor Offences Court ( Prekr Å¡ ajni sud u Splitu ) on charges of breach of public peace and order.

At the same time, the police lodged a criminal complaint with the Split Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Splitu ) against M.M. and F.Z. in connection with a suspicion of the criminal offence of making serious threats with a hate crime element.

No action was taken against T.B. as it was considered that he had an alibi for the time when the incident occurred.

On 16 August 2014 the applicant was subjected to new threats. The police informed him that they had been unable to identify the perpertrators .

On 27 August 2014 the Split Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office rejected the criminal complaint. It found that a certain Z.I., a friend of F.Z., had provided F.Z. with an alibi for the time when the incident occurred. It therefore considered that the identification in the identification parade was not credible evidence.

Meanwhile, the Split Minor Offences Court held a hearing at which it heard the applicant and the accused. The witness Z.I. was also questioned and he confirmed that on the day of the incident F.Z. had been with him and they had visited several bars and other places until they separated in the evening after 7 p.m. The Split Minor Offences Court also obtained and examined the case file of the Split Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office concerning the criminal complaint lodged against M.M. and F.Z.

On 23 February 2015 the applicant complained to the President of the Split Minor Offences Court about the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted in his case. He stressed that M.M. had shown disrespect for the court and him by refusing to enter the courtroom and making derisory remarks about him and had continued with such behaviour while he had given his oral evidence. The President of the Court replied that it had not been in her power to take any particular action in this respect.

On 29 February 2016 the Split Minor Offences Court found M.M. guilty on charges of breach of public peace and order and sentenced him to a community sentence and obliged him to apologise to the applicant. At the same time, it acquitted F.Z. on the grounds that the applicant had been inconclusive as to the question whether F.Z. was one of the attackers and F.Z. had been provided with an alibi by Z.I.

After the adoption of the first-instance judgment, the applicant urged the police to lodge an appeal against the judgment, arguing that M.M. had been too leniently punished. In this connection, the police lodged an appeal before the High Minor Offences Court ( Visoki prekr Å¡ ajni sud Republike Hrvatske ).

On 2 May 2016 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) arguing that the relevant authorities had failed to react appropriately to the homophobic violence against him. He invoked Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention.

On 19 October 2016 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the matter did not concern any of his rights or obligations or a criminal charge against him.

Meanwhile, the applicant complained to the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality ( Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova ) about the failure of the relevant authorities to react appropriately to the acts of homophobic violence against him.

On 23 January 2017 the Ombudsperson sent a letter to the police criticising their conduct with regard to the incidents in which the applicant had been subjected to homophobic violence. She identified a number of omissions in the respective investigations which had impeded the possibility of meaningful prosecution of the perpetrators. She therefore made a number of recommendations which needed to be taken in order to address the issue more comprehensively.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Arti cles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention, of the lack of an appropriate procedural response of the domestic authorities to the acts of homophobic violence against him.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Have the State authorities complied with their procedural obligation under Article 3 and/or Article 8 taken alone and /or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, with regard to the acts of homophobic violence against the applicant?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.