Information Note on the Court’s case-law 205
March 2017
Škorjanec v. Croatia - 25536/14
Judgment 28.3.2017 [Section II]
Article 14
Discrimination
Article 3
Effective investigation
Positive obligations
Facts – The applicant and her partner, who was of Roma origin, were assaulted by two individuals who uttered anti-Roma insults immediately preceding and during the attack. The applicant was treated as a witness in the criminal case and not as a victim alongside her partner. In the Convention proceedings the applicant alleged a failure by the domestic authorities to effectively discharge their positive obligations in relation to a racially motivated act of violence against her in breach of Articles 3 and 14.
Law – Article 3 (procedural aspect) in conjunction with Article 14: The obligation on the authorities to seek a possible link between racist attitudes and a given act of violence, which was part of the responsibility incumbent on States under Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14, concerned not only acts of violence based on a victim’s actual or perceived personal status or characteristics but also acts of violence based on a victim’s actual or presumed association or affiliation with another person who actually or presumably possessed a particular status or protected characteristic. In such instances, the authorities had to do what was reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that could be indicative of racially induced violence.
Article 3 required the implementation of adequate criminal-law mechanisms once the level of severity of violence inflicted by private individuals attracted protection under that provision. Those principles applied a fortiori in cases of violence motivated by racial discrimination. The Court considered that the Croatian legal system provided adequate legal mechanisms to afford an acceptable level of protection to the applicant in the circumstances. However, in this case, the prosecuting authorities had concentrated their investigation and analysis only on the hate-crime element related to the violence attack against the applicant’s partner. They had failed to carry out a thorough assessment of the relevant situational factors and the link between the applicant’s relationship with her partner and the racist motive for the attack on them. The applicant had made specific allegations of racially motivated violence directed against her in her criminal complaint. The prosecuting authorities’ insistence on the fact that she herself was not of Roma origin and their failure to identify whether she was perceived by the attackers as being of Roma origin, as well as their failure to take into account and establish the link between the racist motive for the attack and the applicant’s association with her partner had resulted in a deficient assessment of the circumstances of the case. That impaired the adequacy of the domestic authorities’ procedural response to the applicant’s allegations of a racially motivated act of violence against her to an extent that was irreconcilable with the State’s obligation of taking all reasonable steps to unmask the role of racist motives in the incident.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also, Šečić v. Croatia, 40116/02, 31 May 2007, Information Note 97; Abdu v. Bulgaria, 26827/08, 11 March 2014, Information Note 172; Balázs v. Hungary, 5529/12, 20 October 2015; and R.B. v. Hungary, 64602/12, 12 April 2016, Information Note 195)
© 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