STAJKOVIĆ v. Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is16. on December 2025, passed, and on January 27, 2026, announced the verdict in the caseStajkovic against Serbia,number 56944/17.

It's a verdictbroughtthree-member Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

Criminal proceedings were conducted against the applicant and several other persons before the High Court in Belgrade due to the well-founded suspicion that they had committed the criminal act of extortion in an extended period of time under Article 214 of the Criminal Code.

The criminal proceedings were initiated on April 19, 2013 by the decision of the investigating judge of the High Court in Belgrade Ki. 275/13 to conduct an investigation against the applicant and other persons for the said criminal offense.

The last action in the investigative procedure was taken on July 8, 2013, when the report on the expert examination of the DNA material was submitted.

On October 16, 2013, the higher public prosecutor's office in Belgrade filed an indictment against the applicant and other defendants.

The petition states that the extension of the applicant's detention after August 14, 2013, when his detention expired, was determined by the decision of the Appellate Court in Belgrade K. no. 76/2013 of July 15, 2013 was arbitrary. According to the petition, the only reason for the further extension of detention was the applicant's previous conviction, which was not a sufficient reason according to the then Criminal Procedure Code ("Official Gazette of FRY", No. 70/01 and 68/02 and "Official Gazette of RS", No. 58/04, 85/05, 115/05, 46/06, 49/07, 122/08, 20/09, 72/0'9 and 76/10), (hereinafter: CPC from 2001).

Namely, by the decision of the Appellate Court in Belgrade Cr. 85/13 of August 14, 2013, was rejected as an unfounded proposal by the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade to extend the detention of the applicant and other persons. In the explanation, it was stated that, in accordance with the legal solution at the time, specific reasons for the extension of detention under Article 144, paragraph 3 of the CPC from 2001 must be stated in the proposal, which was not done.

Two days later, the detention of the applicant and other persons was nevertheless extended by the decision of the Appellate Court in Belgrade, Cr. 87/13 of August 16, 2013, at the proposal of the investigative judge of the High Court in Belgrade. In the petition, this decision of the Appellate Court in Belgrade was criticized both in terms of the way it was passed and in terms of the explanation, because it did not state any important reason for extending custody beyond 3 months, in accordance with Article 144, paragraph 3 of the CPC from 2001. The appeal against this decision was rejected.

The applicant's detention was extended once more, until October 16, 2013, and the indictment was filed against him and the other defendants on the same day. The next day, on October 17, 2013, the High Court in Belgrade, before which the criminal proceedings were conducted, by decision Kv. 4489/13, extended the detention of the applicant and other persons based on the provisions of Article 211, paragraph 1, point 3) of the current Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal against this decision was rejected, and the competent courts found that there are special circumstances that indicate that the defendant will repeat the criminal offense in a short period of time. As for the applicant, the courts cited his previous conviction as a reason.

The detention of the applicant and other persons was then extended based on the provision of Article 211, paragraph 1, point 3) of the current Code of Criminal Procedure.

The applicant's custody was terminated on April 15, 2014, by the decision of the High Court in Belgrade Kv. 1306/14. With this decision, a ban on leaving the apartment was imposed on the applicant, which was in force until September 11, 2014.

On September 30, 2013, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, Cr. 87/13 of August 16, 2013 and KŽ2. 3813/13 of August 29, 2013, due to the violation of the right from Article 27 para. 1 and 3 (right to freedom and security), Article 30, paragraph 1 (detention), Article 31, paragraph 1. and 3. (duration of detention), Article 32. paragraph 1. (fair trial), Article 34. paragraph. 3 and 4 (legal certainty in criminal law) and Article 36 (right to equal protection of rights and legal remedy) of the Constitution.

By decision of the Constitutional CourtUzh-7750/2013 on April 27, 2017, a violation of the applicant's right to a limited duration of detention from Article 31 of the Constitution was found, while the remaining part of the constitutional appeal was rejected.

The applicant was not awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage, although he highlighted this claim in his constitutional appeal. The Constitutional Court assessed that fair satisfaction in the specific case is achieved by publishing the decision of the Constitutional Court in the "Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", while the applicant can exercise his right to compensation in a separate procedure, if the conditions for applying the provisions of the Title are met.XXV of the Criminal Procedure Code.

COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on July 31, 2017.

In the petition, among other things, he complained about the violation of the right from Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), because the Constitutional Court did not award him compensation for non-material damages for the established violation of the right to limited duration of detention from Article 31 of the Constitution.

THE DECISION THE COURT

The Court did not accept the Government's complaint that the applicant had not exhausted all domestic legal remedies before addressing the Court, that is, that he could have filed a claim for non-material damages and a request for damages to the Ministry of Justice. This is because the Court assessed that by filing a constitutional appeal, the applicant used one of the possible legal remedies and that he was not obliged to use other legal remedies since the Constitutional Court was obliged to decide on his request. 

Referring to his recent practice (verdictRadonjić and Romić against Serbia,No. 43674/16, paragraph 49.) that non-material damage must be awarded in cases of this type, and bearing in mind the fact that in this particular case the Constitutional Court did not award the applicant any compensation for the established violation of rights, the Court concluded that the determination of the violation of rights, in itself, does not represent adequate compensation, but that it was necessary to determine compensation for non-material damage in the appropriate monetary amount.

Therefore, the Court found that the applicant's right from Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention was violated.

FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)

Since the applicant did not submit a request for just satisfaction, the Court assessed that there is no basis to award him any amount on that basis.