Published on 15 May 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 43411/17 Slavko LAKATOÅ  and Others against Serbia lodged on 29 May 2017 communicated on 29 April 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the fourth applicant by police during arrest, the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against all four applicants and the excessive length of ensuing constitutional proceedings.

Following one of numerous robberies which took place in several municipalities in northern Serbia, on 5 November 2007 the police arrested the fourth applicant. The rest of the applicants were arrested the morning after. In Lakatos and Others v. Serbia (no. 3363/08, 7 January 2014), the Court found a violation of Article 3 (substantive and procedural limbs) on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment the first, second and third applicants had suffered at the hands of the police. The fourth applicant was not an applicant in the aforementioned case.

Subsequently all four applicants were found guilty of multiple robberies and attempted robberies and sentenced accordingly. The second applicant was also found guilty of having caused grievous bodily harm to a police officer while resisting arrest. The domestic courts based their decision, inter alia , on the confession statements given by the first and fourth applicants to the police on 6 November 2007 in the presence of police-appointed lawyers.

The applicants complain that their conviction was based on the first and fourth applicants’ confessions, which had been obtained as a result of prior police brutality. Additionally, the first and fourth applicants complain that they were not informed by the police of all of the charges and evidence against them and that they were coerced into accepting police-appointed lawyers who did not act in their best interest, while the first applicant also complains that he was not afforded adequate time to prepare his defence prior to police questioning.

The applicants also complain about the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which lasted from 9 August 2012 to 9 May 2017.

Lastly, the fourth applicant complains under Article 3 about the police ill-treatment of 5 and/or 6 November 2007 and the respondent State’s failure to conduct any investigation into this incident.

In its decision of 9 May 2017, the Constitutional Court found that there was neither a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in respect of the use of the first and fourth applicants’ confessions nor a violation of the fourth applicant’s right to an effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment. The Constitutional Court dismissed the fourth applicant’s complaint about the alleged police ill-treatment as out of time and the rest of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 as manifestly ill-founded.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the fourth applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention whilst in police custody on 5 and/or 6 November 2007 (see, among many other authorities, Lakatos and Others v. Serbia , no. 3363/08, § 76, 7 January 2014, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V)?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was there an effective investigation, as required by Article 3 of the Convention, in respect of the fourth applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment whilst in police custody on 5 and/or 6 November 2007?

3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there a breach of this provision in view of the use, to secure the applicants’ conviction, of the confession statements allegedly obtained under duress from the first and fourth applicants (see Hajnal v. Serbia , no. 36937/06, §§ 112-15, 19 June 2012, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 162-68, 1 June 2010)?

4. Has the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court been excessive and, as such, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 (see Milovanović v. Serbia , no. 56065/10, §§ 87-90, 8 October 2019; and Grubić v. Croatia, no. 33602/17, §§ 34-41, 18 March 2021)?

APPENDIX

List of applicants

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.Slavko LAKATOÅ

1974Serbian

Novi Sad

2.Lajči DIMOVIĆ

1980Serbian

Novi Sad

3.Ivica DIMOVIĆ

1980Serbian

Subotica

4.Petar NOVAKOVIĆ

1978Serbian

Lalić