Atanasije Ristic against Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 27. May and 1. July 2025. brought, and 26. August announced the verdict in the case in the same year AtanasijeRistic against Serbia, No. 38336/21.
The verdict isbrought Council.
The case refers to the alleged submission of the applicant against his will and binding for the hospital bed handcuffs. Also, the item refers to The unlawful deprivation of the applicant without records of deprivation of freedom, denial of the possibility that the applicant shall be conducted before the Court to check for the legality of detention and the inability to re-examine freedom and detention by the Court. The Court assessed that the complainant's complaints are obviously unfounded, because it was not informed of the decision on his detention, because he was not presented to the legality of his deprivation of freedom and because he was not given the opportunity to dispute the legality of deprivation of liberty before the Court. |
Circumstances Case
Dana 19. November 2016 years, around 22, 00 Hours, while in the company of two friends on the street, the applicant was legitimized by police officers of Palilula Police Station (hereinafter: PS PALILUL). During the legitimizing, the applicant tried to escape and swallowed a bag with narcotic drugs previously held in his pocket. Soon, his police officers caught up with foxes and told him that he was arrested for the attack on the official, after the fox on his hands was conducted in PS Palilula.
The applicant was examined in the police station and that occasion was not handed to a decision on retention, nor was it contacted with a lawyer, although it was explicitly demanding.
In conversation with police officers, the Applicant was granted a couple of bags with narcotic drugs, accompanied by police officers, taken at the Clinic for the urgent and clinical toxicology of the Military Medical Academy in Belgrade (hereinafter: MMA).
The applicant was received on the MMA 20. November at 00.50. According to the applicant, all the time of stay at this clinic, until 23. November at 1:00 pm, was under 24 hours of supervision of police officers who were removed at 12 o'clock and went to the toilet with the applicant. The applicant claimed that during his stay to MMA, he was tied to the hospital bed and that it was disabled to get out of bed as follows or moving around the room. After 48 hours, the Applicant once again requested the police present to enable him to talk to a lawyer, but his request was rejected with the reasoning that he was not deprived of liberty already to be in hospital treatment.
On 22. November 2016. The applicant was given from the Bag with Narcotic Drugs, and police officers seed (the first Basic Court in Belgrade was 22. June 2018. accepted the plea agreement and advertised by the applicant). On the same day, he was allowed to contact him with a lawyer, and he visited two friends.
The applicant was fired from Hospital 23. November 2016. about 13.00 hours and was conducted to PS Palilula, where a statement was taken from him in the capacity of the citizen and after that, he was released at 15.20 hours.
The applicant is 23. December 2016. submitted the Constitutional Court to the constitutional complaint for the violation of the principles and rights under Art. 22. (right to court protection), 25. (Prohibition of Torture), 28. (Default and Freedom Security), 29. (Additional rights in case of freedom without court decision) and 36. (right to equal protection of rights and legal aid) of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and Art. 3, 5. and 13. Conventions.
The Constitutional Court is by decisionUK-9918/2016 From 3. December 2020. In an unfounded constitutional complaint of the applicant, said the "illegal and arbitrary deprivation of Freedom from 19. November 2016 years to inform the Deputy Public Prosecutor in accordance with Article 294 of the Code of Code. The procedure "and actions" of inhuman and degrading treatment during the Applicant's stay in the Department of Toxicology of the Military Medical Academy in Belgrade ". The applicant's constitutional complaint was filed against the actions of the "Inspector and. From 19. November 2016. years" was rejected.
The Constitutional Court took the position that "the acting of the competent state bodies was not founded in formal legal regulations, but it was indisputably legitimate and constitutionally acceptable, because it was a kind of dealing in the specific" end-of-life rescue. Also, the Constitutional Court concluded that the "legitimate teleological interpretation could also be possible to the individuals of this individual from Art. 27, 29. and 36. the Constitution, the right to life should certainly be exceeding this three marked constitutional rights". Regarding the applicant's allegations of inspector's actions. which referred to Art. 25. and 28. Constitution, the Constitutional Court concluded that they were taken between 19. and 20. November 2016, and that the Constitutional Appeal was submitted on 23. December 2016, and rejected the constitutional complaint as untimely.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted to court 30. June 2021. years.
In the representations, he complained about the injury of the torture from Article 3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms during the Bed Binding Hospital, by lying any privacy while in the toilet and forcing to take laxative.
The applicant also complained of violation of the right to freedom and security and an effective remedy from Art. 5. And 13. Convention, because he was not informed about his rights, denied contact with the lawyer and family during that period, he was not derived before a judge who would decide to detain or any legal path to review the legality of detention.
Decision Court
- Article 3 of the Convention
The Court is the complainant of the applicant's violation of Article 3. the Convention rejected as evidently unfounded.
Namely, the Court, applying the standard "beyond a reason for the borough during the hospital, because after the hospital's stay, which he would confirm that he was connected, or filed a criminal complaint to compensate for such allegations.
Regarding complaints related to the Medical Intervention itself, the Court took the view that a minimum degree of seriousness under Article 3 of the Convention has not been reached. Convention, and in accordance with the Court's practice. The intervention was undertaken in a specialized institution by professional, was a short duration, did not cause deterioration to the health situation or physical and psychological suffering, and it was necessary to eliminate the risk of his life and health.
- Article 5 st. 1, 2, 3. and 4. Convention
The Court assessed that deprivation of the applicant's freedom was not in line with the guarantees from the article5. paragraph 1. Conventions, since no solution was made on his retention or detention (withDate, time and place of deprivation of liberty, the name of persons deprived of liberty, the reasons for retention or detention and the name of the person issued by the decision).
Furthermore, the Court found that in the present case the applicant was injured and the right from a member5. paragraph 2. Convention, because he was not informed of the reasons for deprivation of liberty.
Also, the Court found that the applicant was violated from the article5. Paragraph 3. Convention, because he is denied the possibility of being derived before the Court to examine the legality of his deprivation of liberty.
Finally, the Court found that the applicant was injured and the right from a member5. paragraph 4. The Convention, because he was not given the opportunity to dispute the legality of deprivation of liberty before the Court.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 6,000 euros in the applicant in the name of the amount of 6,000 euros, and on behalf of the costs of the procedure of 1,726 euros.