003-6917535-9292684

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 029 (2021)   26.01.2021   Serbian man ill-treated by police   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Zličić v. Serbia (applications nos. 73313/17 and 20143/19)   the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention   on Human Rights   and, by a majority of six to one, that there had been:   no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The case concerned the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police, the investigation into his   allegations, and the proceedings that followed. The applicant was also awarded damages in civil   proceedings for police abuse.   The Court found in particular that the decision of the domestic courts alone was sufficient to find a   violation of Article 3 concerning the alleged ill-treatment. However, it noted many other factors that   would lead to that conclusion, including the medical and witness evidence. The Court also found a   violation of Article 3 because of the absence of an adequate investigation into the allegations.   Concerning the right to a fair hearing, the Court stated that the alleged ill-treatment had not been   vital for the conviction, and the applicant had had a fair trial.   Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksandar Zličić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Novi Sad   (Serbia).   On 10 January 2014 the applicant and his friend were approached by police while sitting outside on a   bench. A police officer asked them if they owned a small plastic bag (the Government stated that it   had contained cannabis). They were arrested.   The applicant asserted that at the police station he had been beaten and stripped, and threats had   been issued in respect of his family and girlfriend. Fearing abuse, he had signed a seizure certificate.   The Government asserted that the applicant had been questioned in accordance with the law and he   had not objected to the officers’ conduct.   On 12 January the applicant sought medical attention, with injuries being noted in the medical report.   The applicant complained to the prosecutor. Evidence from his friend, family members and his   girlfriend corroborated some of what the applicant had attested in terms of injuries and physical   abuse. The public prosecutor at two levels rejected his complaint, finding a lack of evidence. A   constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed as the procedure used had not involved any   constitutional breaches.   Criminal charges were also brought against the applicant. He was found guilty of possession and   sentenced to three months’ imprisonment suspended by the Novi Sad Court of First Instance, which   1. 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.   was upheld on appeal. The first-instance court admitted into evidence the seizure certificate, in the   main accepting the police officers’ accounts. A request for the protection of legality and an appeal to   the Constitutional Court met with no success.   On 22 September 2019 the applicant initiated civil proceedings in connection with the alleged police   abuse. The Novi Sad Court of First Instance accepted his main arguments and awarded him the   equivalent of 670 euros (EUR) in respect of pain and suffering, EUR 835 for the fear endured, and EUR   in costs. Those awards were later reduced on appeal, but the judgment was upheld.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective   remedy) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of ill-treatment in police custody,   and that the trial against him had been unfair.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 October 2017.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Denmark), President,   Marko Bošnjak (Slovenia),   Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),   Egidijus Kūris (Lithuania),   Branko Lubarda (Serbia),   Pauliine Koskelo (Finland),   Saadet Yüksel (Turkey),   and also Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court stressed that Article 3 must be regarded as one of the most fundamental provisions of the   Convention.   The Court stated that the domestic civil courts acceptance of the applicant’s version of events was   sufficient for it to find that he had suffered ill-treatment. It also highlighted the medical evidence, and   his friend’s assertion that the applicant had suffered abuse. The Court furthermore accepted that   coercion had been a factor in the applicant’s signature of the seizure certificate. Lastly, the Court noted   the lack of an alternative explanation from the Government as to how the applicant had been injured.   The applicant had thus suffered inhuman and degrading treatment.   The Court also found a violation of Article 3 given the lack of an adequate investigation into the   allegations raised by the applicant.   The Court noted that the Serbian civil courts had established a link between the suffering experienced   by the applicant and his ill-treatment by the police, finding the State responsible. However, the award   had been inadequate and no adequate police investigation into the ill-treatment had been carried out.   There had thus been a substantive violation of Article 3 and a procedural violation in how the   authorities reacted to the allegations.   Other articles   The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1, since the seizure certificate in question had had no   bearing on “the outcome of the proceedings” against the applicant and, in any event, the applicant   had had many opportunities to make his case in court.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Serbia was to pay the applicant 2,700 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 4,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   Separate opinion   Judge Bošnjak expressed a dissenting opinion, which is joined to the judgment.   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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via   [email protected].   Neil Connolly   Tracey Turner-Tretz   Denis Lambert   Inci Ertekin   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.   3