Information Note on the Court’s case-law 200

October 2016

Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - 2319/14

Judgment 13.10.2016 [Section I]

Article 2

Positive obligations

Delayed enforcement of sentence imposed on accused found guilty of serious assault on the applicant: violation

Facts – The first applicant was very seriously injured during a robbery of her hom e. Her husband, the second and third applicants’ father, was also attacked during the same incident and subsequently died from his injuries. The assailants were convicted of aggravated robbery and received prison sentences. However, one of the assailants c ontinued to live in the vicinity of the applicants’ neighbourhood for a period of eighteen months before starting to serve his sentence. In their application to the European Court the applicants complained that the delayed enforcement of the prison sentenc e gave rise to a breach of Article 2 of the Convention.

Law – Article 2: The fact that the force used by the assailants against the first applicant did not turn out to be fatal was merely fortuitous. She had sustained life-threatening injuries and as such Article 2 applied in the circumstances of the case. The Court noted that following the robbery the assailants had been convicted and sentenced. The applicants did not criticise the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the outcome and the Court took the view that the authorities had fulfilled the procedural obligations that arose under Article 2 with respect to the criminal proceedings. However, the requirement of effectiveness of the criminal investigation under Article 2 could also be interpreted as imp osing a duty on States to execute their final judgments without undue delay. This was so since the enforcement of a sentence imposed in the context of the right to life must be regarded as an integral part of the procedural obligation of the State under th at Article. On the facts of the case, the Court considered that the authorities of the respondent State had not displayed the requisite diligence in enforcing the custodial sentence and the delays, which were entirely attributable to the authorities, could not be regarded as reasonable. The Court therefore concluded that the system of the respondent State with respect to enforcing custodial sentences had not proved efficient in the present case and, accordingly, there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes