Communicated on 13 November 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 29555/13
F.O. against Croatia
lodged on 15 April 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr F.O., is a Croatian national, who was born in 1993.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Between 2008 and 2012 the applicant was a pupil in a public high school institution.
During that period he was several times harassed by a mathematics teacher R.V. who used to shout at the applicant telling him that he was idiot, moron, hillbilly, stupid cop (because of the applicant’s father who worked in the police), and was telling other pupils not to socialise with the applicant. Furthermore, R.V. gave a negative opinion on the applicant’s objections to the manner of evaluation of his final mathematics exam, and eventually the applicant failed to enrol the desired university studies.
In the period between September and December 2011 the applicant underwent psychiatric treatment based on the medical indications of posttraumatic stress disorder related to his alleged harassment in the school. A medical proof to this effect has been submitted to the Court.
On 7 October 2011 the applicant’s father informed the school authorities and the Ministry of Education (Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i športa; hereinafter: the “Ministry”) of the applicant’s harassment by teacher R.V. and requested his protection.
The Ministry replied on 4 November 2011 indicating that it was not competent to deal with the case and that the complaint was forwarded to the Education Agency (Agencija za odgoj i obrazovanje; hereinafter: the “Agency”).
These complaints resulted in a visit by an Agency’s official to the applicant’s school. She invited the applicant and the teacher R.V. to close the book on their problems and advised the applicant that the teacher had not deliberately offended him. The applicant was also summoned by his class master and the headmaster of the school who were angry on him for having problems with the teacher. In a subsequent period the applicant, unlike other pupils, was not tolerated with unauthorised absence from the school. He also experience being removed from the classroom without justification.
When afterwards the applicant and the teacher had a discussion trying to settle their problems, the teacher again called him an idiot.
The applicant several times informed the Ombudswoman for Children (Pravobraniteljica za djecu) of his situation, and she expressed her sympathy for the applicant’s situation informing him that she had urged the competent authorities to promptly deal with his case.
On 4 November 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint alleging harassment by the teacher. He submitted statements of three pupils confirming his allegations.
On 15 November 2011 the applicant’s father complained to the Ministry and personally to the Minister about the passivity of the competent authorities.
He also complained to the President of the Republic whose office instructed the Ministry to deal with the case.
On 18 June 2012 the competent Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo) rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint finding that the teacher had an unconventional approach to the pupils and that there had been some issues with his use of inappropriate words when addressing them but that it could not be qualified as an offence of the abuse of children of minors.
In August 2012 the applicant brought his complaints before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) by challenging the decision of the Municipal State Attorney’s Office and the decision concerning the evaluation of his final mathematics exam (see above).
On 18 October 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaints inadmissible as being lodged against acts which had not decided any of his rights on the merits.
The decisions of the Constitutional Court were served on the applicant on 30 October 2012.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to protect him and to adequately react to his alleged harassment in the school.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the treatment complained of attain the minimum level of severity falling under the concept of “degrading treatment or punishment” under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 33, Series A no. 26; and Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 32, Series A no. 247‑C)? If so, has there been a breach of this provision?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection from degrading treatment or punishment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the treatment complained of entail adverse effect on the applicant’s honour and reputation and/or his psychological or moral integrity that were sufficient to raise an issue pertaining to his right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, attracting the application of this provision (see for example, A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012: and Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247‑C)? If so, can the respondent State be held liable for an unjustified interference with his Article 8 right or for having failed to ensure protection of his enjoyment of this right?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents related to the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy