BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF ŠEČIĆ v. CROATIA
(Application
no. 40116/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31 May
2007
FINAL
31/08/2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Šečić v. Croatia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K.
Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 40116/02) against the Republic
of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Šemso Šečić
(“the applicant”), on 12 November 2002.
- The
applicant was represented by the European Roma Rights Centre based in
Budapest and by Mrs Lovorka Kušan, a lawyer practising in
Ivanić-Grad. The Croatian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agents, first
Mrs L. Lukina-Karajković and subsequently
Mrs Š. StaZnik.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that the domestic authorities had
failed to undertake a serious and thorough investigation of an attack
on him, and also that he had been discriminated against on the basis
of his Roma origin.
- By
a decision of 15 June 2006 the Court declared the application partly
admissible.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Zagreb.
- On
29 April 1999 between 8 and 8.30 p.m. the applicant, together with
several other individuals, was collecting scrap metal in
Harambašićeva Street in Zagreb.
- Suddenly,
two unidentified men approached the group and attacked the applicant.
They beat him all over his body with wooden planks, shouting racial
abuse. Another two unidentified men, apparently members of the same
group, stood close by and kept watch.
- Shortly
afterwards, following a report by an unknown person about the ongoing
fight, a police patrol was sent to the scene. The police interviewed
the persons on the spot and went up and down the nearby streets
attempting to find the attackers.
- An
ambulance arrived and took the applicant to a nearby hospital. The
doctors concluded that no bones had been broken, provided the
applicant with painkillers and sent him home to rest.
- During
the night the applicant experienced severe pain and the next day he
went to another hospital where he was examined again. It was found
that as a result of the assault he had sustained multiple rib
fractures, in particular of the ninth, tenth and eleventh left ribs.
He was kept in hospital for further treatment and discharged a week
later, on 5 May 1999.
- According
to the applicant, since 1 June 1999 he has been having
psychiatric treatment as a result of the incident, he had attended
the Zagreb Psychiatric Clinic on at least eighteen occasions, and he
had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder characterised
by depression, anxiety, panic attacks, fears for his own safety and
that of his family, intermittent insomnia and nightmares and, in
general, an emotional breakdown.
- On
15 July 1999 the applicant's lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with
the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney's Office (Općinsko
drZavno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu “the State Attorney's
Office”) against persons unknown. She gave a factual account of
the incident and alleged that the applicant had been seriously
injured. The applicant offered his own testimony in evidence and
proposed that three eyewitnesses be heard. The applicant requested
the State Attorney's Office to investigate the incident, identify the
perpetrators and institute criminal proceedings against them.
- On
the same day the applicant's lawyer sent a letter to the Zagreb
Police Department (Policijska uprava Zagrebačka “the
police”) in which she informed the police of the incident and
requested the information necessary for the institution of criminal
proceedings. She repeated her request on 30 August 1999.
- On
31 August 1999 the police informed the applicant's lawyer that the
perpetrators had not been identified.
- On
2 September 1999 the applicant's lawyer wrote to the Minister of the
Interior (ministar unutarnjih poslova) informing him of the
incident and stating that the police had not identified the
perpetrators. She requested decisive police action, relying on the
relevant domestic and international human rights standards.
- On
29 September 1999 the police interviewed the applicant about the
events of the evening of 29 April 1999. The applicant described the
two attackers vaguely, stating that due to his short-sightedness he
was not likely to be able to recognise them.
- On
the same date, the police interviewed B. T., who had been with the
applicant on the date in question. He also described the attackers,
stating that he had not seen their faces clearly because he had been
hiding from them during the attack.
- Five
days later, the police interviewed N. C., who lives in the area where
the attack had taken place and who had witnessed the incident. He
described the attackers, stating that as everything had happened very
fast, he had not been able to see them clearly.
- On
7 October 1999 the police interviewed Z. B., another eyewitness to
the incident, who gave a similar statement.
- In
January 2000 the applicant's lawyer asked the State Attorney's Office
twice what steps had been taken to identify and prosecute the
perpetrators, at the same time complaining that the investigation ws
inadequate.
- On
10 February 2000 the State Attorney's Office informed the applicant's
lawyer that they had urged the police to speed up the investigation.
- On
21 February 2000 the State Attorney's Office informed the applicant's
lawyer that the police had carried out an on-the-spot investigation
immediately after having been informed of the incident, that they had
interviewed the applicant and several other witnesses and had
searched the area but had not identified any person fitting the
description of the perpetrators.
- On
16 March 2000 the applicant's lawyer informed the State Attorney's
Office that the individuals who had attacked the applicant had
apparently been engaged in numerous attacks against Roma persons in
Zagreb in the same period. Two of the Roma who had been attacked, I.
S. and O. D., had told the applicant's lawyer that they would be able
to identify the perpetrators and that O. D. had personally witnessed
the attack on the applicant. Furthermore, the police had already
identified and apprehended O. D.'s attackers. The lawyer stressed
that all the incidents had been racially motivated, because the
attackers had combined physical with racist verbal abuse.
- On
16 June 2000 the State Attorney's Office informed the applicant's
lawyer that the police had been unsuccessful in finding O. D. and
that they had no record of any assault on him.
- On
1 August 2000 O.D. was located and interviewed at the Beli
Manastir Municipality State Attorney's Office.. He stated that he
himself had been attacked by a certain S. sometime in January 2000
and that the same person had been one of the applicant's attackers.
He remembered S. because he had a large scar on his face.
- The
police subsequently identified S. as an alcoholic well known to the
local authorities for several criminal offences. However, the police
eliminated him as a possible suspect because no other witness had
identified him despite his very noticeable scar. Also, according to
the information available to the authorities, S. did not belong to
any skinhead group. Nothing in the police case file indicates that S.
was summoned for questioning regarding the incident.
- Meanwhile,
on 24 May 2000 the applicant's lawyer wrote again to the State
Attorney's Office stating that Croatian Radio Television (HRT) had
broadcast a report on 14 May 2000 in which a young skinhead had been
interviewed about his reasons for engaging in attacks on the Roma
population in Zagreb. She claimed that the person interviewed had
alluded to the incident of 29 April 1999 involving the applicant.
- The
State Attorney's Office requested the editor of HRT to give them the
necessary information in order to identify the person interviewed.
- On
18 April 2001 the police interviewed the journalist who did the
interview. The journalist stated that the skinhead he had interviewed
had talked generally about his hatred of the Roma population, but
that he had not specifically addressed the incident at issue. The
interviewee lived in the part of town where the attack took place and
had described how annoying he found it when Roma came to his
neighbourhood to collect scrap metal. However, the journalist did not
wish to disclose the name of the person interviewed, relying on his
right to protect the source of his information.
- Meanwhile,
on 14 February 2001 the applicant's lawyer complained again to the
State Attorney's Office and to the Minister of the Interior of the
poor quality and unacceptable duration of the investigation. She
requested an update and complained that there appeared to be no real
effort on the part of the relevant authorities to identify and
apprehend the perpetrators. She also gave the prosecuting authorities
some new information, namely that the persons who had attacked the
applicant belonged to a skinhead group whose members were responsible
for numerous attacks on the Roma population in Zagreb. She further
described several recent attacks on the Roma population by skinheads
and listed names and addresses of both victims of and witnesses to
such attacks.
- On
22 May 2001 the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant's
lawyer that the police had taken appropriate action on receipt of all
the information provided by her.
- On
6 April 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the
Constitutional Court, requesting it to order the State Attorney's
Office to take all necessary action to complete the investigation as
soon as possible and within six months at the latest.
- On
12 November 2002 the Constitutional Court informed the applicant's
lawyer that it had no competence to rule on cases involving
prosecutorial inaction during the pre-trial stage of proceedings and
took no formal decision on the complaint.
- The
proceedings are still pending at the pre-trial stage.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Section
1(2) of the Media Act (Zakon o medijima, Official Gazette no.
59/2004 of 10 May 2004) provides that its provisions shall be applied
and interpreted in conformity with the Convention.
The
relevant part of section 30 of the Media Act (which used to exist in
the Croatian legal system as former section 28(6) of the 2003 Media
Act (Official Gazette no. 163/2003 of 16 October 2003)), reads as
follows:
“1. A journalist shall not be obliged to reveal
the source of published information or information he intends to
publish...
4. The State Attorney's Office may, if such a limitation
is necessary in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or the protection of health, submit a request to the
competent court to have a journalist ordered to reveal the source of
published information or information he intends to publish....
6. The court may order a journalist to reveal the source
of published information or information he intends to publish if that
is necessary for the protection of the public interest and involves
extremely significant and serious circumstances, whereby it is
indisputably established:
(i) there is no reasonable alternative to revealing the
source of information or that the authority indicated in paragraph 4
of this section, which seeks that the source be revealed, has already
used taken such a measure, and
(ii) the law-based public-interest justification for
revealing the source of information clearly prevails over the
public-interest justification for protecting the source of
information.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 8 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the investigation carried out by the
Croatian authorities following the attack on him had been
unreasonably delayed and ineffective, in breach of Articles 3, 8 and
13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 8
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private
... life...
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. The parties' submissions
1. The applicant
- The
applicant maintained that the criminal investigation in his case had
now been pending for seven and a half years, during which the police
had failed to investigate the attack properly. He stressed that his
lawyer had urged not only the police, but also the State Attorney's
Office and the Ministry of the Interior, to speed up the
investigation and apprehend the attackers. Moreover, the applicant
considered the Government's explanation of the prolonged duration of
the investigations contradictory and unsatisfactory. In particular,
the police had firstly stated that he had given a detailed
description of the attackers, but had later claimed the contrary.
- The
applicant further submitted that he had not been informed of several
omissions by the police, in particular of the reasons why the police
had never sought to investigate the person identified by O. D. as one
of the possible attackers. It appeared from the documents submitted
that the identified individual, known as S., had a criminal record,
whereas he had not even been questioned about the attack on the
applicant.
- Moreover,
the applicant also pointed out that the police had never taken any
action other than to interview the applicant and several eyewitnesses
proposed by his lawyer, even though Croatian law provided for many
other standard police methods, such as interviewing persons
identified as belonging to skinhead groups, possibly also suspects in
other similar incidents, polygraph testing, undercover measures and
so on.
- The
police had further failed to request the competent court to order the
journalist conducting the interview with a skinhead aired on national
television on 14 May 2001 to reveal his source of information, even
though they had no other leads in the case. In this connection, the
applicant observed that such a possibility had been available ever
since the Media Act had come into force, but that the domestic
authorities had nonetheless never used it. Furthermore, such an order
would not have been contrary to the freedom of expression guaranteed
under the Convention, since in the present case the general interest
in prevention of crime against ethnic minorities prevailed over the
protection of the source of information.
- For
these reasons, the investigation had not met the standards set out in
the Court's case-law with respect to Article 3 of the Convention,
taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13. Alternatively, should
the Court conclude that his case did not attain the minimum level of
severity under Article 3, the applicant argued under Article 8 that
the attack he had suffered and the lack of an effective investigation
thereof, had constituted an unjustified interference with his private
life.
2. The Government
- The
Government contested the applicant's allegations. They claimed at the
outset that the ill-treatment to which the applicant had been exposed
had not attained a level of severity which would justify the
application of Article 3 of the Convention. The incident had been
caused by unknown individuals and not by representatives of the
authorities and the Government could not assess to what extent the
applicant's mental suffering following the incident had been caused
by the attack itself or whether it had existed before.
- In
respect of the investigation following the incident, the Government
firstly contended that the positive obligation of the State in cases
when the ill-treatment had been caused by third persons went only so
far as that the State was expected to prevent acts of which its
bodies were or should be aware.
- Furthermore,
the Government pointed out that the police had intervened immediately
after having been informed about the attack. The subsequent
investigation had been significantly hindered from the very outset,
however, because neither the applicant nor the persons who had
witnessed the attack had been able to give a sufficiently detailed
description of the attackers. Moreover, the applicant had admitted
that he would not be able to recognise the attackers even if he were
to see them again. During the investigation the police had
interviewed all the potential witnesses to the incident, including
persons living in the area and a waitress working in a nearby café.
All actions had been taken in the shortest time possible.
- It is true that witness O. D. had identified a certain
S. as one of the attackers. However, none of the other witnesses
having confirmed this allegation – despite the large and
visible scar on his face and the fact that he was well known to the
police, although not as a member of a skinhead group – the
police had excluded him from the list of possible suspects.
- As
to the journalist interviewed, the Government submitted that he had
the right not to reveal his source of information and that, under the
law in force at the time of the interview, he could not have been
ordered to do so.
- In
conclusion, the Government deemed that the investigation in respect
of this incident had not constituted a violation of Article 3 or 13
of the Convention. As to the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of
the Convention, the Government claimed that there had been no
immediate or direct link between the actions pursued and his private
life.
B. The Court's assessment
- Having
regard to the nature and the substance of the applicant's complaint
in the present case, the Court finds that it falls to be examined
primarily under Article 3 of the Convention.
- The
Court reiterates at the outset that the ill-treatment suffered must
attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope
of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it
depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and
context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental
effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of
the victim (see Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96,
§ 24, ECHR 2001 VII).
- In
the present case, the Court considers that the injury suffered by the
applicant, including several broken ribs and subsequent
hospitalisation, was sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment
within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
- The
Court reiterates that the obligation of the High Contracting Parties
under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their
jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken
together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to
ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected
to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private
individuals (see A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23
September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p.
2699, § 22; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.
29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V; and E. and Others v.
the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).
-
Article 3 of the Convention may also give rise to a positive
obligation to conduct an official investigation (see Assenov and
Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports
1998-VIII, p. 3290, § 102). Such a positive obligation
cannot be considered in principle to be limited solely to cases of
ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no.
39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003 XII).
- Lastly,
the Court reiterates that the scope of the above obligation by the
State is one of means, not of result; the authorities must have taken
all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence
concerning the incident (see, mutatis mutandis, Menson v.
the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003 V). A
requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the
investigation is implicit in this context (see, mutatis mutandis,
Yaşa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports
1998 VI, p. 2439, §§ 102-104).
- Turning
to the present case, since the event complained of took place the
police have not brought charges against anyone and the criminal
proceedings have now been pending in the pre-trial phase for almost
seven years.
- The
Government submitted the complete police case file in the matter,
containing interviews with the applicant and several eyewitnesses,
which the police claim has not produced any leads. Yet, presumably on
the basis of the description of the attackers, the police concluded
that the attack had been committed by members of a skinhead group,
which has been known to participate in similar incidents in the past.
The police appear never to have brought in for questioning any person
belonging to this group or to have pursued this information in any
other way. Moreover, they excluded the person S. identified by one of
the witnesses from the list of possible suspects without questioning
him about the attack.
- The
police also interviewed the journalist who had talked to one of the
skinhead members who had alluded to the attack on the first
applicant. However, they did not request the competent court to order
that the journalist reveal his source of information in line with the
provisions of the domestic law. The relevant law had already changed
to allow such a possibility by 2003, but the Government did not
explain why the police did not avail themselves of this, given that
there appeared to be no further leads in the case. The Court
considers that such an action by the police or the competent State
Attorney's Office would not a priori be incompatible with the
freedom of the media guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention,
since, in any event, it would be for the competent court to weigh all
the interests involved and to decide whether or not it was necessary
in the particular circumstances of the case to reveal the interviewed
person's identity.
- Lastly,
the Court notes that the police have not resorted to any other
measures of investigation allowed for by the domestic law, other than
interviewing witnesses proposed by the applicants' lawyer. In this
connection, the Court cannot but note that the last activity of the
police in the case took place in 2001.
- Having
considered all the material in its possession and the arguments put
forward by the parties, the Court considers that the failure of the
State authorities to further the case or obtain any tangible evidence
with a view to identifying and arresting the attackers over a
prolonged period of time indicates that the investigation did not
meet the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.
- In
consequence, the Court finds that there has been a breach of Article
3 of the Convention.
- Having
regard to the above conclusion, in the circumstances of the present
case the Court finds that no separate issues arise under Articles 8
or 13 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 TAKEN IN CONJUCTION WITH ARTICLE
3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained that both his ill-treatment and the
subsequent proceedings conducted by the authorities showed that he
had been discriminated against on account of his ethnic origin. He
relied on Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction
with Article 3 of the Convention. Article 14 reads as follows:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set
forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on
any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a
national minority, property, birth or other status.”
A. The parties' submissions
- The
applicant maintained that the attack on him and the lack of action by
the authorities had resulted from the fact that he was of Roma
origin. He relied on the Nachova case (see Nachova and
Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR
2005 ...) and on the assumption that a complaint of racist
violence should be accorded utmost priority, as racist violence was
particularly destructive of fundamental rights. In this respect the
applicant pointed to the broader situation of the Roma population in
Croatia as well as the recently published report of the European
Commission against Racism and Intolerance (Third Report on Croatia,
CRI (2005) 24, 14 June 2005).
- The
Government considered the applicant's Article 14 complaint
wholly unsubstantiated. They maintained that nothing in the conduct
of the domestic authorities had indicated a difference in treatment
of the applicant on the basis of his Roma origin or a tendency to
cover up events or encourage an attack to his detriment. The fact
that the perpetrators had not yet been identified had no connection
with the ethnic origin of the applicant, but was the result of
objective problems the prosecuting authorities had experienced during
the course of the proceedings.
- In
this connection the Government enumerated several cases in which the
police had been successful in identifying and prosecuting persons who
had committed crimes against individuals of Roma origin. They claimed
that there was no systemic problem encountered by the Roma population
in Croatia, other than their difficulties of integration into
society, which were common also in other States signatory to the
Convention.
B. The Court's assessment
- The
Court reiterates that when investigating violent incidents, State
authorities have the additional duty to take all reasonable steps to
unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic
hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the events. Admittedly,
proving racial motivation will often be extremely difficult in
practice. The respondent State's obligation to investigate possible
racist overtones to a violent act is an obligation to use best
endeavours and is not absolute; the authorities must do what is
reasonable in the circumstances of the case (see Nachova and
Others, cited above, § 160, ECHR 2005 ...).
- The
Court considers the foregoing necessarily true also in cases where
the treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention is inflicted by
private individuals. Treating racially induced violence and brutality
on an equal footing with cases that have no racist overtones would be
turning a blind eye to the specific nature of acts that are
particularly destructive of fundamental rights. A failure to make a
distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially
different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment
irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see Nachova and
Others, cited above, with further references).
- In
the present case it is suspected that the applicant's attackers
belonged to a skinhead group which is by its nature governed by
extremist and racist ideology. Both the police and the Government
admitted this fact.
- The
Court considers it unacceptable that, being aware that the event at
issue was most probably induced by ethnic hatred, the police allowed
the investigation to last for more than seven years without taking
any serious action with a view to identifying or prosecuting the
perpetrators (see paragraphs 58-60 above).
- Consequently,
the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 14
taken in conjunction with the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the
Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage on account of pain, frustration and humiliation suffered as a
result of the attack and of the subsequent inadequate investigation.
- The
Government considered this claim unsubstantiated and excessive.
- Having
regard to all the circumstances of the present case, the Court
accepts that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which
cannot be compensated solely by the finding of a violation. Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant
EUR 8,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on
that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed 790 US dollars (USD) in respect of costs incurred
by the European Roma Rights Centre in the domestic proceedings and
USD 8,344 for those incurred in the proceedings before the Court (111
hours of work at an hourly rate of USD 75). In addition, the
applicant claimed a total of EUR 6,600 (110 hours at an hourly rate
of EUR 60) in respect of costs incurred by the lawyer in preparing
the constitutional complaint at the domestic level as well as those
incurred during the Court proceedings.
- The
Government contested these claims as excessive.
- According
to the Court's established case-law, costs and expenses will not be
awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were
actually and necessarily incurred and are also reasonable as to
quantum. Furthermore, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as
they relate to the violation found (see Beyeler v. Italy (just
satisfaction) [GC], no. 33202/96, § 27, 28 May 2002).
Taking into account all the materials in its possession, the Court
makes an award of EUR 6,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention;
- Holds that no separate issue arises under
Article 8 or Article 13 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts which are to be
converted into the national currency of the respondent State at a
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
8,000 (eight thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
6,000 (six thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
