Communicated on 19 September 2017
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 29417/17
LENKA MALAGIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 6 April 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant’s former husband, N.M., was indicted in July 2013 that in the period between the beginning of 2008 and November 2012 he had threatened to kill the applicant, repeatedly raped her, deprived her of her liberty, prevented taking of evidence in the criminal investigation against him and ill-treated his and the applicant’s children.
In the period between 3 April 2013 and 11 March 2014 N.M. was in pre-trial detention on the grounds that there was a risk of reoffending.
In the period between 12 March 2014 and 8 July 2016 a restraining order was issued against N.M. to the effect that he was not allowed to approach the applicant or to contact her on the grounds that he had continued to threaten her, had spoken to her of a man who had killed his child and had sent her a photograph of himself holding a gun.
On 8 July 2016 the restraining order was terminated on the grounds that N.M. had been complying with it. The remedies the applicant attempted were declared inadmissible on the grounds that she had no right to use a remedy against a decision terminating the restraining order in respect of N.M.
The applicant, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, complains that the national courts did not assess whether N.M. still presented a danger for her and their children and that the mere statement that he had complied with the restraining order could not suffice to terminate it in the circumstances of her case.
She also complains under Article 13 that she has no effective remedy against the decision to terminate the restraining order.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the positive obligations under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the Convention, have the national authorities properly assessed whether N.M. still presented a risk for the applicant’s life, safety and personal security when they terminated a restraining order against him on 8 July 2016 (see Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, 15 January 2009; and Talpis v. Italy, no. 41237/14, §§ 95-106 and 126-132, 2 March 2017)?
2. Is Article 6 applicable to the proceedings concerning the issuing of a restraining order against N.M.? If so, was that decision adequately reasoned as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy