Published on 15 May 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 7861/23 Rada PETROVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 8 February 2023 communicated on 27 April 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In 2019 the applicant, then 15 years old, spent 29 days in pre-trial detention on suspicion of rape. The detention was based on the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings by exerting influence on the witnesses and the co-accused.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant were subsequently discontinued at the request of the prosecutor. On 5 October 2021, the Subotica Court of First Instance awarded the applicant approximately EUR 770 for unjustified deprivation of liberty under the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Civil Obligations Act.

The final domestic decision concerning the applicant’s detention was given by the Constitutional Court on 22 December 2022.

Invoking Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the lawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention, alleging that the grounds relied on by the authorities were not relevant. He further argues that the authorities failed to consider measures alternative to detention and that he was detained together with adults.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Could the applicant still be considered a victim of the alleged violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, in view of the redress awarded by the Subotica Court of First Instance in its judgment of 5 October 2021 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 143-44, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, and Lyubushkin v. Russia , no. 6277/06, §§ 49-52, 22 October 2015)?

2. Assuming that the applicant retains victim status, was he deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant’s detention necessary, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see Korneykova v. Ukraine , no. 39884/05, §§ 43-49, 19 January 2012)? In particular:

(a) did the authorities consider measures alternative to detention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 147, 22 May 2012 and the authorities cited therein, and Dinç and Çakır v. Turkey , no. 66066/09, § 63, 9 July 2013)?

(b) did the authorities take the applicant’s age into consideration when ordering his detention and was the applicant kept in a prison together with adults (see Nart v. Turkey , no. 20817/04, §§ 31-33, 6 May 2008)?

3. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Were the grounds for his detention “relevant” and “sufficient”, within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 224, 28 November 2017)?

4. Did the national authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 87, 5 July 2016)?