Information Note on the Court’s case-law 223
November 2018
V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2) - 19421/15
Judgment 15.11.2018 [Section I]
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Supervision procedure pending before Committee of Ministers did not preclude examination of follow-up application in respect of new aspects not determined in initial judgment
Facts – The applicant, who suffered from schizophrenia, had been arrested at his parents’ flat following an argument with his relatives. In its judgment of V.D. v. Croatia (15526/10, 8 November 2011), the Court held that there had been violations of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 in connection with that incident. In order to execute the Court’s judgment, the domestic courts had reopened the proceedings against the police officers suspected of the applicant’s ill-treatment during the arrest, and the relevant State Attorney’s Office had conducted a fresh investigation into the incident.
The applicant complained that the fresh investigation had fallen short of the requirements of Article 3. The Committee of Ministers had not yet concluded its supervision of the execution of V.D. v. Croatia.
Law – Article 46: The Court had to ascertain whether it had jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaint without encroaching on the prerogatives of the respondent State and the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 in the execution of the Court’s judgment in the case of V.D. v. Croatia.
The fresh investigation had given rise to a number of further procedural measures that had been taken by the State Attorney’s Office, which had led to the collection of further evidence and the establishment of new facts concerning the applicant’s case. The applicant’s complaints concerned the effectiveness of the fresh investigation and the decision of the State Attorney’s Office to terminate that investigation on the basis of new evidence adduced and facts established.
In those circumstances, the alleged lack of effectiveness of the fresh investigation, and more specifically the errors which the applicant claimed had vitiated the decision of the State Attorney’s Office to terminate the proceedings, constituted new information in relation to the Court’s previous judgment. As those issues could not have been decided by the previous judgment since they were related to the way the new investigation had been conducted, they could be dealt with by the Court.
The fact that a supervision procedure in respect of the execution of the initial judgment was still pending before the Committee of Ministers did not prevent the Court from considering a new application in so far as it included new aspects which had not been determined in the initial judgment.
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention.
(See also Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], 19867/12, 11 July 2017, Information Note 209; and Egmez v. Cyprus, 30873/96, 21 December 2000, Information Note 25)
© 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