Published on 12 February 2024

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 35786/22 Marko STALOVIĆ and Sandra STALOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 11 July 2022 communicated on 26 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns alleged police ill-treatment of the applicants, a husband and wife who came to the police station to report a car theft, and a lack of an effective investigation into these allegations.

The first applicant claims that he was beaten, threatened with violence, and suffocated with a plastic bag in the police station because of his Roma origin. The second applicant alleges that she was subjected to degrading treatment (verbal insults and threats) because of her marriage to the first applicant. They both allege that they were subjected to ill-treatment in order to confess that they had been involved in the disappearance of their car.

The applicants’ criminal complaint against police officers was rejected due to lack of evidence. The Constitutional Court rejected their constitutional appeal on 28 October 2021 and that decision was served on the applicants on 21 January 2022.

In the meantime, on 1 June 2020, in civil discrimination proceedings the Belgrade High Court established that the applicants had been subjected to harassment and degrading treatment on the basis of the first applicant’s Roma origin and awarded them jointly approximately 6,400 euros in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered. That judgment became final on 17 December 2020 after being confirmed by the Belgrade Court of Appeals.

Invoking Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicants complain of ill-treatment and lack of an effective response into these allegations, which they believe are a product of institutional racism.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Could the applicants still be considered victims of the alleged violations, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, in view of the Belgrade High Court’s judgment of 1 June 2020? In particular, could the redress awarded to the applicants thereby be considered appropriate and sufficient?

2. Assuming that they didn’t lose victim status, have the applicants been subjected to torture and/or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and/or 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? In particular:

(i) Have the respondent State’s authorities acted of their own motion once the matter has come to their attention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 119, ECHR 2015)?

(ii) Was the investigation thorough (see S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, § 316, 25 June 2020, and El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 183, ECHR 2012)?

(iii) Was the investigation independent (see Bouyid , cited above, § 118, and compare with Bursuc v. Romania , no. 42066/98, § 103-104, 12 October 2004)?

(iv) Did the respondent State’s authorities secure the applicants’ rights to participate effectively in the investigation (see X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 189, 2 February 2021)?

4. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of the first applicant’s Roma origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?

Have the State authorities involved in this case complied with their additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the impugned events (see, for example, Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia , no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018, with further references)?