Published on 23 October 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 56944/17 Vladimir STAJKOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 31 July 2017 communicated on 3 October 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was detained for 11 months on suspicion of committing an extortion.

On 20 April 2017 the Constitutional Court found that the competent courts failed to act with “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicant and did not give relevant and sufficient grounds to justify his continued detention.

The Constitutional Court ordered the publishing of its decision finding it a sufficient just satisfaction and awarded no financial compensation to the applicant.

Invoking Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Constitutional Court did not award him any compensation for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 4.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has the applicant had an effective and enforceable right to compensation as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention for his detention which had been found to be in contravention of Article 5 § 4 by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 20 April 2017?

In particular,

(a) bearing in mind the Constitutional Court’s competence to award damages when it finds a violation of one of the rights enshrined in the Constitution of Serbia, was the applicant required to lodge another claim for compensation in order to comply with the exhaustion rule (see Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, 19 February 2009)?

(b) was the mechanism for claiming damages for wrongful deprivation of liberty provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code (Articles 583-595) an available remedy for the applicant within the meaning of Article 5 § 5?

(c) could the applicant claim damages before the civil courts under the general rules of tort law based on the Constitutional Court’s decision finding a violation of his fundamental rights, or would he be required to prove a violation of his rights before the competent court (see the Constitutional Court’s decision Už-9428/2017 of 27 September 2018)?