Communicated on 30 June 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 25536/14 Maja Å KORJANEC against Croatia lodged on 20 March 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Maja Škorjanec, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Zagreb. She is represented before the Court by Ms L. Kušan, a lawyer practising in Ivani ć Grad.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 9 June 2013 the applicant and her partner, who is of Roma origin, were approached by two persons who started pushing the applicant, insulting her and threated her for being in a relationship with a man of Roma origin. Soon afterwards one of the attackers grabbed the applicant by the t-shirt and thrown her to the floor causing her to hit the ground with her head. The attackers then turned to the applicant ’ s partner and, while saying that all Roma people should be killed, started kicking him and even tried to stab him with a knife.

On 29 July 2013 the applicant and her partner, through the same representative, lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Zagrebu ) against two unidentified individuals. They submitted, inter alia , the relevant medical documentation showing that the applicant had sustained contusions and haematoma on her head.

Meanwhile the applicant ’ s representative tried to obtain the relevant information about the attackers from the Zagreb Police Department ( Policijska uprava zagreba č ka ) on the grounds that she needed the information for institution of the relevant court proceedings.

On 12 November 2013 the police informed the applicant ’ s representative that on 10 June 2013 they had lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office against two individuals in connection with a suspicion that they had committed the offence of attempted causing grave bodily injuries against the applicant and her partner, which had been, in the circumstances of the case, qualified as hate crime. The applicant ’ s representative was also informed that for all further information she should contact the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office.

The applicant ’ s representative then informed the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office that the applicant and her partner would participate in the proceedings as victims and requested to be informed of all relevant procedural actions.

On 16 and 17 January 2014 the applicant ’ s representative was informally informed by the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office that the criminal proceedings have been instituted against two individuals for the hate crime against the applicant ’ s partner but that no proceedings had been opened concerning the attack against the applicant because she was not of a Roma origin and therefore she could not be a victim of hate crime.

On 23 January 2014 the applicant ’ s representative received a letter of the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office confirming that the criminal proceedings had been instituted against two individuals on charges of the violent hate crime against the applicant ’ s partner.

On 17 February 2014 the applicant ’ s representative, invoking the domestic authorities ’ obligations under the Convention, requested the police and the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office information about the criminal complaint lodged on behalf of the applicant.

She received no reply.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Articles 3 and 8 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to effectively discharge their positive obligations in relation to a racially motivated act of violence against her.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention? In particular, have they provided a framework for an adequate protection against a racially motivated physical violence, and have they effectively investigated the physical attack against the applicant?

2. Have the relevant authorities complied with their procedural obligation, under Articles 3 and 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, related to a possible motive behind the physical attack against the applicant that might be associated to her partner ’ s Roma origin (see Å ečić v. Croatia , no. 40116/02, § 66, ECHR 2007 ‑ VI)?

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