Veskovic v. Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 2. In September 2025. passed, and 23. September 2025. published a verdict in the caseVeskovic v. Serbia, No. 30741/22.
The verdict isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the duration of the applicant's detention and the reasons given by domestic courts, which was allegedly abstract and repetitive (repetitive), as well as the length of the decision-making procedure before the Constitutional Court of Constitutional Appeals in Constitutional Conservant. The Court found a violation of the right to freedom and security due to the length of the applicant's detention,a ratedisThat there is no need to consider the complainant's complaint with the duration of the decision-making procedure before the Constitutional Court at constitutional complaints regarding detention. |
Circumstances Case
The applicant was in custody starting from 3. July 2018. year, when he was extradited to Serbia, due to the suspicion of the suspicion of difficulties and unauthorized sales, posture and trade of weapons and explosive substances (in consecuting).
The detention is determined by the applicant a judge for the previous higher court proceedings in Belgrade KPP. 132/18 from 2. April 2018. For the reasons prescribed by the provisions of Article 211. Paragraph 1. Item 1) and 3) criminal proceedings, ie. Due to the circumstances that indicated the danger of escape and due to the danger that the applicant would repeat a criminal offense in a short period of time. His detention, at the time of submission, was extended a total of 35 times, for the same reasons.
According to the information from the application, the applicant stated seven constitutional complaints against the decision on extension (4. May 2019, 7. August 2020, 11. June 2021, 26. November 2021, 28. January 2022, 8. April 2022. and 26. May 2022. years). Only one decision of the Constitutional Court (UK-7987/2020 from 24. January 2023) was submitted to the application.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant filed a representation of the court 16. June 2022. years.
The applicant complained about the violation of the right to freedom and security referred to in Article 5. paragraph 3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter custody and repetitive (repetitive) reasons for detention and due to the length of the procedure before the Constitutional Court.
Decision Court
The court reminded the general principles concerning the reason for detention and its duration, which were summarized in the caseRadonjić and Romić v. Serbia (No. 43674/16, para. 61-70, from 4. April 2023. year, with further instruments).
Furthermore, the Court found that the applicant's detention began in July 2018. year, when he was extradited to Serbia and ended 10. June 2024, when he was in house arrest, and that it lasted five years, 11 months and seven days. The Court stated that the competent courts in its prolonged suspicion was initially invited to be criminals, and at risk of escape due to the fact that he was in the domestic authorities after the critical event later on the warrant,As well as the existence of particular circumstances that the criminal offense will repeat in a short period of time, and that the competent court 1. March 2024. found that the basis for the applicant's detention was in paragraph 3) of 211. paragraph 1. The criminal code has ceased to exist.
The Court assessed that the reasons expressed by domestic authorities are certainly relevant.
However, in the specific circumstances of a particular case, the Court did not examine whether they were sufficient, because in any case domestic bodies did not show "special diligence" in conducting criminal proceedings. This because domestic courts scheduled a total of 56 main trial hearings, 31 of whom are delayed, mostly from various process reasons that could not be attributed to the applicant. Moreover, the Court found that the trial of the applicant had to start over five times because the president of the council and / or composition of the council was changed.
The Court did not accept government that the complexity of the cases and the nature of the criminal offenses, assessing that there were no exceptional circumstances that could justify such debt detention in this case, which lasted five years, 11 months and seven days.
Accordingly, the Court found that there was a violation of Article 5. Paragraph 3 of the Convention due to the length of the applicant's detention.
The complainant's complainant to disclose the proceedings before the legality of its detention was not in accordance with the request of the "speed" specified in Article 5. paragraph 4. Convention, the Court did not consider, assess that in the circumstances of a particular case, there is no need.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 3,000 euros in the name of the compensation of 3,000 euros, and that the amount of 4,070 euros pays the applicant to the applicant.