Communicated on 9 November 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 16883/15
Vladimir ŠTITIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 1 April 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Štitić, is a Croatian national, who lives in Karlovac. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Plavec, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Zadar Municipal State Attorney’s Office, alleging that police officers B.R., B.M. and S.K. had hit and kicked him all over his body during his arrest on 2 November 2012, even though he had not given any resistance. The applicant enclosed a medical report of 3 November 2012 showing that he suffered from fresh eardrum perforation and haematoma on both eyes.
On 26 November 2013 the complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the officers had no intention to cause grave injuries to the applicant.
The applicant then took over the prosecution and asked for an investigation. His request was dismissed on 11 June 2014 by the Zadar County Court. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 30 June 2014 by the same court. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 21 October 2014 by the Constitutional Court for lack of competence on the grounds that it did not concern the applicant’s civil rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Constitution of the Republic of Croatia
The relevant part of Article 23 of the Croatian Constitution (Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998, 113/2000, 124/2000, 28/2001, 41/2001, 55/2001, 76/2010, 85/2010) reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to any form of ill treatment ...”
2. Constitutional Court Act
The relevant part of section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act (Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette nos. 99/1999, 29/2002, 49/2002) reads:
“1. Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if he or she deems that a decision of a state body, a body of local and regional self‑government, or a legal person with public authority concerning his or her rights and obligations, or about a suspicion or an accusation of a criminal act, has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms, or his or her right to local and regional self-government guaranteed by the Constitution (hereinafter: a constitutional right) ...
2. If another legal remedy exists against the violation of the constitutional right [complained of], the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after that remedy has been exhausted.
3. In matters in which an administrative action or, in civil and non-contentious proceedings, an appeal on points of law is allowed, remedies shall be considered to have been exhausted only after a decision on these legal remedies has been given.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under the substantive and procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention.
He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy for his Convention complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms were applied in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy