SECOND SECTION
Application no. 41694/07
Suzana ISAKOVIĆ VIDOVIĆ
against Serbia
lodged on 18 September 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Suzana Isaković Vidović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Šabac.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 September 1997 the applicant and her neighbour P.V. confronted each other in front of their respective houses following a verbal conflict between P.V. and the applicant’s mother. While the applicant allegedly shouted obscenities at him, P.V. allegedly severely punched her in the face, causing her to fall down and lose consciousness. The medical records from the emergency ward showed that the applicant had sustained grievous bodily injuries.
On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint (podnela krivičnu prijavu) in respect of this event.
On 16 September 1997 P.V. and his wife brought a private criminal action (privatna krivična tužba) against the applicant for insult and defamation (uvreda i kleveta) and against both the applicant and her mother for making serious threats (ugrožavanje sigurnosti).
On 2 March 1998 the Šabac public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against P.V. in the Municipal Court in Šabac for having inflicted severe bodily harm on the applicant (optužnica za nanošenje teških telesnih povreda).
On an unspecified date, the Municipal Court joined the two proceedings.
It would appear that the applicant lodged a civil-party complaint (istakla imovinsko-pravni zahtev) at some point in 2000.
On 15 June 2000 the Municipal Court convicted both the applicant and P.V. as charged and sentenced them to a fine and four months imprisonment, respectively, both sentences suspended for one year. That court instructed the applicant to pursue her civil claim (imovinsko-pravni zahtev) in separate civil proceedings. The applicant’s mother was acquitted.
On 6 June 2001 the District Court in Šabac quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial, but upheld the acquittal.
On 12 January 2004 a new hearing was scheduled for 25 February 2004.
On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred, while the proceedings against P.V. continued.
On 2 April 2004 the main hearing started anew due to changes to the composition of the bench. After the applicant’s testimony, the proceedings were adjourned for an indefinite period, as the Municipal Court had to obtain certain missing medical documents.
At the following hearing of 18 May 2005, the Municipal Court heard P.V., as well as three witnesses. The court decided to request the Institute for Forensic Medicine of the Faculty of Medicine in Belgrade to give its opinion as regards the applicant’s bodily injuries at the material time. The hearing was adjourned indefinitely.
On 19 December 2005 the Municipal Court received the relevant medical opinion dated 16 September 2005. The opinion stated that the attack had caused the applicant severe bodily injuries (loss of consciousness, concussion and a contusion of the zygomatic bone).
On an unspecified date the Municipal Court scheduled the next hearing for 22 May 2007. This hearing, however, was further adjourned on two occasions, because of the P.V.’s or the trial judges’ absence.
On 11 July 2007 the court dismissed all proposals for examination of further witnesses. The defendant on this occasion requested that the entire bench be replaced by another. The case-file was subsequently forwarded to the President of the court to decide.
On 5 September 2007 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings against P.V. as time-barred.
COMPLAINT
Referring to Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the manner in which the criminal proceedings against P.V. were conducted, resulting, effectively, in his impunity, as well as the respondent State’s consequent failure to provide her with any redress.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are the applicant’s complaints compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione temporis, given that the assault on the applicant dates back to 1997 (see Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 147, 159 and 161-163, 9 April 2009; Tuna v. Turkey, no. 22339/03, §§ 58-63, 19 January 2010, and Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, §§ 28-29, 18 October 2011?
2.1. Did the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by P.V. attain the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention?
2.2. If so, having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 1 and 3 of the Convention, even when inflicted by private persons, has the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms were applied in the present case by the domestic authorities been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Beganović v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, §§ 71 and 74-88, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts), and Çelik v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 39326/02, §§ 33-36, 27 May 2010; see, mutatis mutandis, Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, §§ 54 and 76-78, ECHR 2006‑XII (extracts))?
3.1. Alternatively, did the act of violence in question have an adverse impact on the applicant’s physical and moral integrity necessary for the engagement of Article 8?
3.2. If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Sandra Janković v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, §§ 36, 44-45 and 51-58, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts))?
4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 3 and/or 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy