FIRST SECTION
Application no. 7446/12
Tomislav REMETIN
against Croatia
lodged on 5 July 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Tomislav Remetin, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Dubrovnik.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 4 March 2008, while he was still a high school pupil, the applicant was attacked by a group of twenty persons without any particular reason. He was hit by a rock at his head above the eye. He was diagnosed with a grave bodily injury which left him with permanent physical scars and continuous emotional problems.
4. The group of so called “Skinheads” that attacked the applicant came from the Dubrovnik’s neighbourhood of Mokošice. The same group committed a number of similar attacks in Dubrovnik, one of which resulted in the death of a seventeen year-old child.
5. Concerning the attack against the applicant, the Dubrovnik Police Station (Policijska uprava Dubrovačko-neretvanska, Policijska postaja Dubrovnik: hereinafter: the “police”) conducted a preliminary investigation into the event and on 2 July 2008 lodged a criminal complaint against the unidentified perpetrators with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku). Since then the perpetrators have not been identified and no other measures have been taken.
6. On the night of 18 to 19 December 2010 the applicant was again attacked by the same group. They were throwing bottles and glasses all over his head and body. He sustained numerous injuries. The police conducted an investigation and on 22 December 2010 indicted the perpetrators in the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Dubrovniku).
7. On 27 December 2010 the applicant requested the information concerning his case from the police.
8. On the same day he lodged a civil claim for damages with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office concerning the attack of 4 March 2008. He also asked copies of all the relevant reports on the ground that he would lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights.
9. The applicant received a reply from the police on 28 December 2010 informing him that he should submit his request for information to the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office.
10. On 12 January 2011 the applicant requested the police to provide him with a copy of the relevant reports concerning his case.
11. The police informed the applicant on the same day that all relevant reports had been submitted to the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office and the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court and that he should ask those bodies for copy of the reports.
12. On 8 February 2011 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office informed the applicant that he could come and inspect the case file if he so wished. They also informed him that they had not yet identified the perpetrators of the attack against him of 4 March 2008.
13. On 27 February 2011 the applicant again requested the Dubrovnik State Attorney’s Office to allow him to copy the reports from the case file arguing that he had a right to copy the reports and not only to inspect the case file.
14. On 16 March 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against G.M. and M.T. as regards the attack against him on the night of 18 to 19 December 2010, with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office.
15. On 28 July 2011 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office indicted G.M. and M.T., in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Dubrovniku) on charges of violent behaviour. Since then there has been no progress in the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, invoking Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, about the lack of an appropriate response of the domestic authorities to the repetitive acts of violence against him by a group of private individuals.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the States’ positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, has the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms have been applied in the present case by the domestic authorities been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of the positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s right to respect for his private life?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy