Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 154
July 2012
Đorđević v. Croatia - 41526/10
Judgment 24.7.2012 [Section I]
Article 3
Positive obligations
Violent and persistent harassment of a disabled person by neighbourhood children: violation
Facts – The first applicant, who was mentally and physically disabled, lived with his mother (the second applicant) in a ground-floor flat. Both applicants complained that they had been continuously harassed between July 2008 and February 2011 by pupils from a nearby primary school and that the authorities had not adequately protected them. A series of incidents were recorded throughout that period, with children ringing the family doorbell at odd times, spitting on the first applicant, hitting and pushing him around, burning his hands with cigarettes, vandalising the applicants’ balcony and shouting obscenities at them. The attacks had left the first applicant deeply disturbed, afraid and anxious. They complained on numerous occasions to various authorities, including the social services and the ombudsman. They also rang the police many times to report the incidents and seek help. Following each call, the police arrived at the scene, sometimes too late, and sometimes only to tell the children to disperse or stop making a noise. They also interviewed several pupils and concluded that, although they had admitted to having behaved violently towards the first applicant, they were too young to be held criminally responsible.
Law – Article 3 (first applicant): The first applicant had been continuously harassed and, as a result, had felt helpless and afraid for prolonged periods of time. He had also been physically hurt on one occasion. That ill-treatment had been sufficiently serious to attract the protection of Article 3.
Acts of violence contrary to Article 3 normally required recourse to the application of criminal-law measures against the perpetrators. However, in the instant case most of the alleged perpetrators were children under fourteen, who could not be held criminally responsible under the domestic law. It was also possible that none of the acts complained of had individually amounted to a criminal offence, but that the incidents taken as a whole were nevertheless incompatible with Article 3. The first applicant’s case therefore concerned the State’s positive obligations in a situation outside the sphere of criminal law where the competent State authorities were aware of serious harassment directed at a person with physical and mental disabilities. The authorities had been aware of the harassment from the start and were thus under an obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect the first applicant. Although the police had interviewed some of the children allegedly involved and the school authorities had discussed the problem with the pupils and their parents, no serious attempt had been made to assess the true nature of the situation or the lack of a systematic approach which had resulted in the absence of adequate and comprehensive measures. The findings of the police were never followed by concrete action: no policy decision was adopted or monitoring mechanisms put in place in order to recognise and prevent further harassment. The Court was particularly struck by the lack of any true involvement of the social services and the absence of any indication that relevant experts had been involved who could have given appropriate recommendations and worked with the children concerned. No counselling was ever provided to the first applicant. The authorities had thus failed to take all reasonable measures to protect the first applicant, notwithstanding the real and foreseeable risk of continuing abuse.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 8 (second applicant): The harassment of the first applicant had inevitably affected the private and family life of his mother, the second applicant. In view of its finding that the authorities had failed to adequately prevent further harassment of the first applicant, the Court could not but conclude that they had failed to afford adequate protection in that respect also to the second applicant.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 11,500 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy