Communicated on 23 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 15352/11 Svetlana NIKOLIĆ against Serbia lodged on 10 January 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Svetlana Nikolić , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Belgrade. She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Tomić , a lawyer practising in the same town.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On 26 March 2006 at around 17h00 the applicant ’ s neighbour , D.V., allegedly punched the applicant several times in the head and pulled her hair, causing her to fall down. Then D.V. continued kicking and punching her, while being helped by her male friend N.N. The neighbour D.V. had allegedly been verbally attacking the applicant since 2002 and the applicant had already lodged several criminal complaints in that respect to police between 2003 and 2005, but to no avail.

4. The medical records from the emergency ward showed that the applicant had sustained a number of injuries to her head and leg ( contusiones capitis , constusio femoris ) and had also a few wisps of hair pulled out. She was released from hospital the same day.

5. On 20 April 2006 the applicant brought a private criminal action ( privatnu krivičnu tužbu ) in respect of the underlying event against D.V. for the crime of minor bodily injuries ( zbog nanošenja lakih telesnih povreda ).

6. On 9 June 2006 the presiding judge sent the case-file to the investigating judge to hear the applicant and the accused D.V. and provide an expert report. On 11 October 2006 the presiding judge requested the investigating judge to hear a witness D.Z. He did so and returned the case-file back on 24 April 2007.

7. Between April 2007 and June 2010 a total of four hearings were held out of ten scheduled hearings.

8. On 11 June 2010 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings against D.V. as time-barred as of 26 March 2010. Throughout the proceedings the applicant complained about the lack of diligence on the part of the domestic courts.

The decision of the Constitutional Court and the related proceedings thereafter

9. In a subsequent constitutional appeal lodged on 25 December 2009 and amended on 25 May 2010, the applicant complained to this effect, as well as about the length of the above criminal action. She also submitted the decision of 11 June 2010.

10. On 22 July 2010 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant had indeed suffered a breach of her “right to a trial within a reasonable time”, disregarding the applicant ’ s other complaint. It found that there had been several periods of judicial inactivity and a number of unwarranted adjournments throughout the criminal proceedings, while the applicant had not contributed to the procedural delay in any manner. Additionally, the court declared that the applicant was entitled to non-pecuniary damages sought, in accordance with Article 90 of the Constitutional Court Act. The decision was dispatched on 28 October 2010.

11. On 2 November 2010 t he applicant ’ s lawyer submitted a request with the Commission for Compensation. In so doing, he relied on the Constitutional Court ’ s decision, and sought 1,500,000 dinars (“RSD”) in compensation on various grounds. On 13 December 2010 the applicant urged the Commission to render the decision.

12. In the meantime, on 25 November 2010 the Commission for Compensation offered to make a draft agreement with the effect of paying the applicant the sum of RSD 20,000 (at the time approximately 185 euros (“EUR”) for the non-pecuniary damage referred to in the Constitutional Court ’ s decision. The applicant seems not to have been served with this decision until 21 March 2011. It would appear that the a pplicant refused to accept the offered amount, deeming it insufficient and humiliating.

13. Instead, on 7 February 2011 the applicant brought civil proceedings with the Belgrade First Court of First Instance against the Ministry of Justice, seeking RSD 1,500,000 for the non-pecuniary damage sustained, plus statutory interest . The court requested the applicant to pay RSD 56,300 on account of court stamp as her request for exemption from payment of the court stamp had been refused.

14. On 16 April 2013 the court accepted the applicant ’ s claim in part and awarded her RSD 150,000 (approximately EUR 1340), as well as costs and expenses.

15. On 4 February 2015 the Belgrade Court of Appeal ( Apelacioni sud ), decreased the award to RSD 100,000 (approximately EUR 800).

COMPLAINT

Referring to various Articles of the Convention, the applicant complains about the manner in which the criminal proceedings against D.V. were conducted, resulting, effectively, in her impunity, as well as the respondent State ’ s consequent failure to provide the applicant with any redress.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.1. Did the act of violence have an adverse impact on the applicant ’ s physical and moral integrity necessary for the engagement of Article 8?

1.2. If so, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Sandra Janković v. Croatia , no. 38478/05, §§ 44-45 and 51-58, 5 March 2009, and Isaković Vidović v. Serbia, no. 41694/07, §§ 58-64, 1 July 2014)?

2.1. Alternatively , did the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by D.V. attain the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention?

2.2. If so, having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 1 and 3 of the Convention, even when inflicted by private persons, has the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms had been applied in the present case by the domestic authorities been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Beganović v. Croatia , no. 46423/06, §§ 71, 74-87, 25 June 2009, and Çelik v. Turkey , no. 39326/02, §§ 33-36, 27 May 2010)?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaints under Articles 8 or alternatively 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?