Published on 11 April 2022

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 6749/22 and 7154/22 Danijel GRGIÄŒIN against Croatia and Liam GRGIÄŒIN against Croatia both lodged on 31 January 2022 communicated on 25 March 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the allegedly disproportionate use of force during the arrest of the first applicant, who had refused to wear a protective mask on public transportation, and the second applicant who had witnessed the scene.

On 27 June 2020 the first applicant boarded a train, without wearing a protective mask, with his son, the second applicant, who was two and a half years old at the time. Two days prior, in the framework of COVID sanitary protection measures, an official instruction had come into force stating that all passengers using public transportation were to wear a protective mask, failing which the vehicle could not drive. After refusing to put on a protective mask or to leave the train, upon request both by the train personnel and a police officer, the applicant put on a mask only when he saw three policemen approaching. He was then informed that proceedings would be initiated against him for disturbing the public order and insulting a police officer. Since he refused to disembark the train, he was apprehended by the police officers and carried off the train and handcuffed. The second applicant, who witnessed the scene, started crying. The applicants were then escorted to the police station where they stayed for another two hours before being released. The applicants subsequently complained to the competent Ministry about the conduct of the police, but their complaint was dismissed. Their ensuing complaint to the Constitutional Court was also dismissed. In subsequent minor-offence proceedings, the first applicant was acquitted of the charges of disturbing peace and public order by insulting a police officer.

The applicants complain, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the force used by the police against the first applicant had been disproportionate and that the investigation into their allegations had not been effective. They also complain that the violent arrest of the first applicant, and keeping the second applicant at the police station without anyone taking care of him, exposed the second applicant to inhuman and degrading treatment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the first applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment during his arrest, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Was the force used against him proportionate and absolutely necessary in the circumstances, noting his subsequent acquittal in the minor-offence proceedings?

2. Did the second applicant’s exposure to the arrest of his father and the manner in which he was treated by the police officers during and after his father’s arrest amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (cf. Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria , no. 34529/10, §§ 125-137, ECHR 2013 (extracts); A v. Russia , no. 37735/09, §§ 66-70, 12 November 2019; and Ioan Pop and Others v. Romania , no. 52924/09, 6 December 2016)? What are the rules on dealing with children should the adult they were accompanying be arrested, and have any such rules been followed in the second applicant’s case?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95 , § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?