Cholovic against Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 9. September 2025. brought, and 30. September announced the verdict in the case in the same yearCholovic against Serbia, No. 2806/20.
The verdict isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to incompliance to the compensation of intangible damage to the applicant for a determined violation of the right to freedom and security. The Court found that the applicant was violated from Article 5, paragraph 5. Conventions that Anyone who was arrested or deprived of liberty in contrast to the provisions of Article 5. Convention guarantee Effective right to compensation. |
Circumstances of the case
The applicant is 10. March 2016. years heard in the presence of counsel In the official premises of PU in Uzice due to the existence of a suspicion of the criminal offense from Article 208. paragraph 1. KZ RS.
The solution of the MUP PU in Užice. LS 30/16 from 10. March 2016. The applicant was determined for up to 48 hours, which has been counted from 10. March 2016. year, from 4 pm.
An appeal against the decision on retention of the applicant was appealed to the Basic Court in Užice via PU in Užice. Police officers received the appeal 10. March 2016. at 9 p.m., Since the applicant's defender was informed that the appeal was received by the Basic Court in Uzice, what the official note was made of.
In the official notes of the MUP PU in Užice - the Department of Criminal Police 03/40/1/2 of 10. March 2016. in 20.40 Police officers, Radisava Čolović, a lawyer from Uzice I., and asked them to appeal the decision on retention; that police officers introduced him to the given appeal to the Basic Court in Uzice; that the President of the Basic Court in Užice B.J, which pleaded that police officers received the above appeal and that the same court in Uzice submitted the same in the morning; that the Chief of the M.R Criminal Police Department, which pleaded acting on the oral order of the judge; that police officers are 10. March 2016. at 9 pm, received the above appeal.
The appeal was received in the Basic Court in Užice 11. March 2016. in 08.15. By the solution of the Basic Court in Uzice KPPR. 75/16 of 11. March 2016. year, was rejected as an unfounded complaint of defense counsel and the solution of the Basic Court in Užice KPPR. 75/16 of 11. Marta 2016. year, was annexed on 11. March 2016. in 10.50, and the applicant defense counsel received him on the same day at 11.55.
Dana 11. March 2016. year at 15.00 PU in Uzice, the LS solution was made in Uzice. 30/16 by which 11. March 2016. in 19.00, the subject decision on retention was abolished.
The Constitutional Court is by decisionUK-2900/2016 From 4. July 2019 years adoptedthe constitutional complaint of the applicantHe found that the applicant was violated by the provision of Article 27. paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and ordered that the decision is published in the "Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia". The compensation of intangible damage for the established violation of the right of the Constitutional Court has not awarded.
Complainants of the applicant and the proceedings before the court
The applicant filed a representation of the court 20. December 2019. years.
The applicant complained about the violation of the right to freedom and security referred to in Article 5. st. 1, 4. and 5. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. of the Convention, because the Constitutional Court has not awarded to him a compensation for the right of law referred to in Article 27. Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Also, the applicant also complained about the violation of the right to an effective remedy referred to in Article 13 of the Convention.
Court decision
Point out their recent practice (judgmentRadonjić and Romić v. Serbia,No. 43674/16, paragraph 49) that the intangible damage must not be awarded to the applicant, the Court concluded that the determination of the right to compensate, but that it was necessary to determine the compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the appropriate monetary amount.
Therefore, the Court found that the applicant was violated from Article 5. Paragraph 5 of the Convention.
Fair satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 800 euros in the name of the compensation of non-pecuniary damage, and that the amount of 1200 euros pays the amount of costs and expenses.