003-3610346-4091317

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 111 (2011)   19.07.2011   School boy’s complaints of bullying should have been more   specific to be admissible before the European Court of Human   Rights   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Đurđević v. Croatia (application   no. 52442/09), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   A violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation into allegations of ill-   treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as regards the failure to   effectively investigate Katica Đurđević’s complaint of police assault; and that   The complaint concerning bullying at Daniel Đurđević’s school was   inadmissible.   The case concerned the complaints by three members of a family of Roma origin about   their ill-treatment by private individuals, by the police and at the son’s school.   Principal facts   The applicants, Đuro Đurđević, his wife Katica Đurđević, and their son Danijel Đurđević,   are three Croatian nationals who were born in 1967, 1966 and 1994 respectively and live   in Kloštar-Ivanić (Croatia).   At about 9.30 in the evening of 16 June 2009, a row erupted between Danijel Đurđević   and a group of men outside a restaurant in Ivanić Grad, because one of the men had   insulted Danijel’s brother on account of his Roma origin and had spat in his food. Verbal   abuse and physical fighting were witnessed at the scene. When the police arrived, the   fighting stopped.   The police officers took Danijel Đurđević, his brother and several other people involved in   the fight, to a police station. According to Katica and Đuro Đurđević, when about an hour   later they arrived at the police station, a police officer pulled Katica roughly from her car,   twisted her arm, punched her in the chest and kicked her in the abdomen. Katica and   Danijel were examined that night at a hospital where it was established that Katica had   suffered contusions of the chest, head and pelvis, and Danijel – contusions on the head   and on the nose.   On 9 July 2009, the police brought charges against several individuals who had   participated in the fight, including Danijel’s brother. The court found all of them, save for   Danijel who was minor at the time, guilty of disturbing public order and peace and issued   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   warnings to all and a fine to one of them. In separate proceedings, Danijel was found   guilty of participating in a fight and was reprimanded.   Katica Đurđević was charged with disturbing public peace and verbally insulting a police   officer. She brought a criminal complaint against two police officers for having assaulted   her. The prosecutor rejected her complaint for lack of evidence so she took it before a   court which found that she had not submitted it in the required form.   Starting in December 2008, Danijel’s parents complained several times to various   authorities that their son had been constantly insulted and frequently beaten at school.   Danijel was interviewed by the police in that connection and, in January 2009, the school   authorities issued two reports in reply to those allegations. The reports suggested that   Danijel was a pupil who frequently quarrelled with other students and teachers, that   school representatives had regularly spoken to him in an attempt to tackle his problems,   and that when he had complained about incidents with other students, the pupils   concerned had been warned by the school and the school authorities had also discussed   the matter with the parents.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Danijel alleged in particular that the authorities had done nothing to identify and punish   those responsible for beating him up during the incident outside the restaurant. His   mother further alleged that she and Danijel had been ill-treated by two off-duty   policemen upon leaving the police station where Danijel had been taken and that the   official investigation into that allegation had been inadequate. All the applicants also   made allegations that Danijel had been frequently insulted and beaten at school due to   his Roma origin and that the authorities had failed to protect him. They relied on   Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for   private and family life).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 September   2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Anatoly Kovler (Russia), President,   Nina Vajić (Croatia),   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),   Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   George Nicolaou (Cyprus),   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Row outside the restaurant (Article 3)   The Court found that Danijel’s complaint, that he had been beaten up by private   individuals and that the Croatian authorities had done nothing to punish the   perpetrators, was inadmissible and rejected it.   In particular, the Court held that the participants in the quarrel had been found guilty of   insults and fighting, one of them had been fined and Danijel had been reprimanded in   that connection. Therefore, the national authorities had investigated and established the   facts and, by attributing responsibility for the fight, had acted in line with their duties   under the Convention.   Alleged ill-treatment at the police station (Article 3)   The Court held that, contrary to the Government’s submissions, it had not been   necessary for the applicants to pursue the prosecution of the police officers on their own   by pressing charges. Complaining to the prosecutor about it had been sufficient, and it   had been the prosecutor’s obligation to act upon their complaint.   It then observed that there had been no evidence, apart from Danijel’s and Katica’s   allegations, that the police officers had assaulted them. While the presented medical   documentation had recorded injuries to the applicants, in the absence of a proper   assessment by the national authorities as to what exactly had happened, the Court   concluded that it was not possible to establish whether the police officers had beaten the   applicants. There had, therefore, been no violation of Article 3 as regards the allegations   of police assault.   On the other hand, despite the medical evidence raising at least a reasonable suspicion   that Katica’s injuries might have been caused by the police, the only investigation into   her allegations had been carried out by the very police authorities about which she had   complained. Thus, serious doubts had arisen about their ability to carry out an effective   investigation. In addition, while it had been ultimately the prosecutor’s responsibility to   ensure that the investigation was effective, no independent steps had been undertaken   by the prosecution either. Instead, Katica’s complaint had been dismissed solely on the   basis of the police reports. Consequently, the Court concluded that the national   authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into Katica Đurđević’s   complaint of police assault, in violation of Article 3.   Alleged bullying at Danijel’s school (Article 3 and Article 8)   The Court noted that, as the applicants’ complaint concerned violence against Danijel in   school, they had not been required to submit a criminal complaint. The authorities, on   the other hand, had an obligation to act in order to protect people from ill-treatment   even by private individuals, and to secure respect for people’s private life even in the   sphere of relations between individuals.   The Court observed that the medical reports submitted by the applicants had recorded   injuries such as permanent eye damage, complaints of stomach and back pain and   headaches. However, the applicants had never referred to exact dates or circumstances   or any other detail of specific incidents when the injuries might have occurred. Their   complaints had only been worded in vague and general terms. They had never indicated   the exact dates or circumstances or any other detail of specific incidents of Danijel’s   alleged ill-treatment.   In connection with one specific incident signalled by Danijel and his parents, the school   authorities had investigated and established that it had been an accident as another   pupil had turned his head and accidentally hit Danijel. The State authorities therefore   could not have anticipated a risk of it happening and had not been required to have   intervened beforehand in order to protect Danijel.   As regards Danijel’s eye injury, the medical report had not indicated the cause of it or   whether it had been connected with a specific incident of violence at school. Danijel, on   the other hand, had complained that he had been hit by unknown aggressors outside his   school. Yet, he had not referred to a particular incident at school which could have been   the cause of his eye injury.   Consequently, in the absence of more specific allegations about the place, time and   nature of the acts complained of, the Court could not hold the State responsible for not   responding adequately to the alleged violence against Danijel at school. It therefore   rejected that complaint as inadmissible.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Croatia was to pay Danijel and Katica Đurđević 6,000 euros (EUR) in   respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel 33 3 88 41 41 09   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4