Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 136
December 2010
Milanović v. Serbia - 44614/07
Judgment 14.12.2010 [Section II]
Article 14
Discrimination
Religiously motivated attacks by private individuals on a Hare Krishna member: violation
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Religiously motivated attacks by private individuals on a Hare Krishna member: violation
Facts – The applicant, a leading member of the Hare Krishna religious community in Serbia, started receiving anonymous telephone threats and was attacked on two occasions in 2001. He reported the attacks to the police, who were unable to obtain any useful information concerning the attackers. In July 2005, June 2006 and June 2007, respectively, the applicant was attacked in the vicinity of his flat and each time stabbed in the abdomen or chest by unidentified individuals. In one of the attacks the assailants scratched a crucifix on the applicant’s head. The attacks were reported to the police and the applicant submitted that they might have been committed by members of a far-right extremist group. The police questioned witnesses and several potential suspects, but were never able to identify any of the attackers or obtain more information on the extremist group they allegedly belonged to. In a report issued in 2005 the police referred to the applicant’s well-known religious affiliation and his “rather strange appearance”. In a further report in 2010 they observed that the attacks on the applicant always occurred around a major Orthodox religious holiday and that the applicant had publicised the incidents while “emphasising” his own religious affiliation. Moreover, they noted that self-infliction of the applicant’s injuries could not be excluded. Criminal proceedings in respect of the attacks were still pending when the European Court adopted its judgment.
Law – Article 3: Many years after the incidents, the applicant’s attackers had still not been brought to justice. The police had not kept the applicant properly informed of the course of the investigation or afforded him the opportunity to personally see and possibly identify his attackers from among a number of witnesses and suspects who had been questioned by the police. On the contrary, the police considered that the applicant’s injuries might have been self-inflicted, although there was no medical or other evidence to that effect. By July 2005 at the latest it should have been obvious to the police that the applicant, who belonged to a vulnerable religious minority, was being systematically targeted around the same time every year and that future attacks were likely to follow, but they had done nothing to prevent them. No video or other surveillance was ever put in place in the vicinity of the flat where the incidents had occurred, no police stakeout was ever contemplated and the applicant was never offered police protection. Despite the numerous steps taken by the domestic authorities and the significant difficulties encountered during the investigation, the Court considered that they had not taken all reasonable measures to conduct an adequate investigation and to prevent the applicant’s repeated ill-treatment by persons unknown.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3: As in cases of racially motivated ill-treatment, when investigating violent attacks State authorities had the additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any religious motives and to establish whether or not religious hatred or prejudice might have played a role in the events, even when the ill-treatment was inflicted by private individuals. In the applicant’s case, where it was suspected that the attackers had belonged to one or several far-right organisations governed by extremist ideology, it was unacceptable that the State authorities had allowed the investigation to drag on for many years without taking adequate action with a view to identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators. Moreover, it was obvious from the police conduct and reports that they had serious doubts related to the applicant’s religion and the veracity of his accusations. Consequently, even though the authorities had explored several leads suggested by the applicant concerning the underlying religious motivation of his attackers, those steps had amounted to a little more than a pro forma investigation.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: EUR 10,000 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