Nikolic v. Serbian
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 13. May 2025. brought, and 3. June of the same year announced the judgment in the case Nikolic against Serbia, No. 21155/22.
The verdict isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the alleged abuse of the applicant by the police and the efficiency of the investigation with that in a relationship. The Court assessed that the evidence submitted does not indicate that his health problems has caused the police, ie that abuse by the police happened at all, and his complaints in relation to the material aspect of Article 3. the Conventions rejected as evidently unfounded. However, the Court found a violation of the process aspect of Article 3. Convention, because the investigation was not effective in the occasion of complaints' complainants, and it was not independent and because the applicant did not participate in the same extent. |
Circumstances Case
The applicant is 7. February 2013, as a minor, filed a criminal complaint in Novi Sad (hereinafter referred to in Novi Sad) for criminal offenses extortionation, abuse and torture, unlawful deprivation of freedom and racial and other discrimination. He claimed that 16. November 2012. year, while he was examined in PS Bačka Petrovac on alleged thieves, police officer G.W. punched in the stomach, while the police are B.J. and B.M. Hell in the head, which made him consciousness and fell to the ground, and then was taken to the children's hospital where he was operated on the hooked Kyle.
OJT in Novi Sad is 30. October 2015 rejected the applicant's criminal complaint, because there was no basis for suspicion that a criminal offense was executed ex officio.
More Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad (hereinafter: December 2015. adopted failure in the fact that medical expertise of the applicant was not performed on November 16, 2012, as was the investigation into the illegal procedure of police delegated PS Bački Petrovac, whose officials were the subject of investigation, instead of being entrusted to the internal control sector of the Ministry of Interior. OJT in Novi Sad was ordered to examine witnesses and suspects, as well as order medical expertise in injuries suffered by the applicant.
OJT in Novi Sad is 22. July 2016. took statements from the mentioned police officers who denied that the applicant had abused in any way. Also, at the end of 2016, a statement from the applicant was taken, while only two years later (16. October 2018), the statements were taken from other witnesses. The finding and opinion of the medical expert was submitted only in February 2019. years and was not evidence of visible injuries on the applicant's body at the time of the disputed event. He was admitted to the hospital due to the previous health condition and the expert concluded that he was coiled hernia a health condition that was not caused by an alleged injury.
On 19. June 2019, Ojt rejected the applicant's criminal report, relying on the above-mentioned doctor's report that no injuries could be reported due to alleged abuse by the police.
WJT in Novi Sad is 24. October 2019. the applicant's complaint as unfounded.
The applicant is 10. September 2018. submitted the Constitutional Court to the constitutional complaint against the action of an OUTTA in Novi Sad in the case of KT. 2307/13 and the Actions of Police Officers of the Ministry of Interior - Police Administration Novi Sad - PS Bački Petrovac and PS Bač from 16. November 2012.
The Constitutional Court by Decision at the UK-10205/2018 of 4. October 2021. rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint in the part of Article 25 of the Constitution, while in the other part there is a constitutional complaint rejected the constitutional complaint. In the explanation, the Constitutional Court stated that the possible shortcomings of the investigation were eliminated by the treatment of OJT in Novi Sad in its continuation, after the obligatory instructions of WJT in Novi Sad KTPO. 283/15 of 1. December 2015 years. Regarding the material aspect of this Constitutional member, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's judicial expertise has not been established, as well as that he did not provide evidence with the help of which he could argue the opposite.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted to the Suda 1. April 2022. years.
In the representations, he complained about the injury of bannage from Article 3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) by alleged abuse by the police, as well as the efficiency of the investigation with its complaints with this regard.
Decision Court
The Court is the complainant of the applicant's violation of the material aspect of Article 3. the Conventions rejected as clearly unfounded. Namely, the court, applying the standard "beyond a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has been subjected to the applicant that the applicant had no visible injuries and that he was healed by a health condition that was not caused by injury.
However, the Court assessed that there was an injury of the process aspect of Article 3 of the Convention. This for the reason for the investigation of his allegations, for significant delays, because the investigation was not independent (and as the applicant was examined for more than three years, which he has deprived of the opportunity to participate in investigative actions to the extent necessary for protection of its legitimate interests).
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of £ 1,800.00 in the applicant in the name of the amount of HUR 1,800.00, and in the name of the cost of 2,100 euros.