CASE OF REMETIN v. CROATIA (No. 2)
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Georgieva;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković
5. The applicant was born on 8 September 1989 and lives in Dubrovnik. 6. On 4 March 2008, at around 7.00 p.m., the Dubrovnik Police Station (Policijska uprava Dubrovačko-neretvanska, Policijska postaja Dubrovnik; hereinafter: the “police”) received an anonymous call informing the police that a mass fight was planned in the vicinity of the Naval High School in Dubrovnik (Pomorsko-tehnička škola u Dubrovniku). Three police officers were immediately sent to the scene. 7. When the police officers arrived at the scene there was no fighting going on but inside the school they found the applicant with an injury on his forehead. He was immediately taken to hospital and examined by a doctor. The applicant’s medical record of 4 March 2008 reads: “Diagnosis VLC reg supraorbicularis lat dex Medical history and status Allegedly took part in fighting and sustained a cut of three centimetres above the right brow bone. He did not lose consciousness, he recollects the event, he did not vomit. No neurological symptoms. The wound was treated, no sign of fracture. An antibiotic is recommended, bandage every third day in clinic. Follow-up by a surgeon if necessary.” 8. On the same date the applicant was interviewed by the police. He stated that he had been standing in front of the school together with his classmates and that all of a sudden he had been hit on the head with a rock, which had knocked him to the ground. His friends had helped him to stand up and carried him inside the school. He himself had not been involved in any fighting and had had no idea that something might happen. 9. On 23 May 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Office”) against unknown perpetrators, under Articles 99 and 331 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 54 below), alleging that on 4 March 2008 he had been injured by a group of hooligans in front of his school. One of them, who he could not identify, had thrown a rock at his head hitting him on the forehead. Blood had immediately started to run and one of his friends had to carry him inside the school. 10. The applicant submitted the medical record of 4 March 2008 and explained that his father had erased part of the text on the medical record which suggested that he had taken part in a fight because he had not wanted to have something untrue noted on the record. 11. On 29 May 2008 the State Attorney’s Office forwarded the applicant’s criminal complaint to the police and requested a report on the matter. 12. In the period between 5 and 30 June 2008 the police interviewed several people, including the doctor who had drafted the medical report of 4 March 2008. He considered that the applicant’s injury should be classed as a minor bodily injury. The police also questioned V.Č. and I.N., two of the applicant’s schoolmates, who confirmed his version of events. 13. The police also obtained a medical opinion of 6 June 2008 recommending that the applicant undergo further neurological examination. 14. On 2 July 2008 the police informed the State Attorney’s Office of the results of their preliminary investigation. The relevant part of the police report reads: “... a group of boys from Mokošica, headed by P.H., in which G.V. and M.P. and several other unidentified individuals were involved, went to the front of the Naval High School on 4 March 2008 in order to take revenge [for a previous fight between a student from the Naval School and P.H.]. When the students from the school saw the group of boys from Mokošica they ran away or headed back into the school, while a group of students attempted to leave the schoolyard passing by the [group of boys from Mokošica]. At that point the boys from the Mokošica group started to throw rocks at them and one rock hit Tomislav Remetin on his head, causing him a minor bodily injury, namely a cut on his forehead. Then some students from Lapad, among whom was A.N., started to throw rocks back. During this clash one rock hit M.P. from the group of boys from Mokošica on his head, causing him a cut on his forehead, which was a minor bodily injury.” 15. In connection with the attack, on 20 November 2008 the applicant underwent another medical examination. The doctor found no damage to his brain but an inflammation of his sinuses and referred him for further treatment. 16. On 18 May and 6 July 2009 the applicant’s father was allowed to inspect the case file kept by the State Attorney’s Office. 17. On 27 December 2010 the applicant asked for information concerning his case from the police on the grounds that he wanted to lodge an application with the Court. 18. On the same date he lodged a civil claim for damages with the State Attorney’s Office on account of his physical and mental suffering caused by the attack. He pointed out that the police report had identified a number of individuals who had taken part in the attack and that a number of people had been interviewed. He further argued that he, and his father, had already orally requested that the police and the State Attorney’s Office provide copies of the relevant documents from the case file but that their request had been denied. He therefore asked for copies of all the relevant reports on the grounds that he wished to lodge an application with the Court. 19. The police replied on 28 December 2010 and 12 January 2011 informing the applicant that he should submit his request for information to the State Attorney’s Office. 20. On 8 February 2011 the State Attorney’s Office informed the applicant that he could come and inspect the case file if he so wished. The State Attorney’s Office also pointed out that the police had not identified the persons who had injured him, which meant that the case was being treated as a criminal complaint against an unknown perpetrator, and that it has been all the time open to the applicant to lodge a criminal complaint against any individual he suspected of committing the offence. 21. On 22 February 2011 the applicant asked the State Attorney’s Office to allow him to copy the relevant documents from the case file because he wanted to institute proceedings before the Court, pointing out that by the letter of 8 February 2011 he had only been allowed to inspect, and not copy, the case file. 22. By letters of 4 July and 27 July 2011 the State Attorney’s Office informed the applicant that he could come on 14 July and 19 August 2011 to inspect and copy the case file. 23. In the meantime, on 5 July 2011, the applicant lodged an application with the Court. He did not go to the State Attorney’s Office to inspect the case file. 24. On 19 December 2010, at around 4.35 a.m., the police were informed that there was a fight in bar C. in Dubrovnik. Two police officers were immediately sent to the scene. 25. At the scene the police officers found several people, including the applicant and M.K., with visible injuries. 26. On the same date the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found that he had several cuts on his head and shoulder, which were characterised as minor bodily injuries. 27. The police also interviewed the applicant and several other people. The applicant stated that he had been drinking in bar C. with his friend M.K. At one point a man had approached them and head-butted the applicant for no reason. After that, several other people had started to throw glasses and bottles at the applicant and, after he had fallen to the floor, to kick him. He managed to escape from the bar but then he realised that he had left his t-shirt, shoes and necklace behind in the bar. He had therefore returned to search for his things but was again attacked by the same group, who continued throwing bottles and glasses at him and, once he had fallen to the floor, to kick him. He managed to escape from the bar again and was then attended to by the police and other emergency services. 28. On 22 December 2010 the police indicted the applicant and seven other people in the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Dubrovniku) on charges of breach of the public peace and order. There is no information on the outcome of these proceedings. 29. On 27 December 2010 the applicant asked for information concerning his case from the police on the grounds that he wanted to lodge criminal complaints before the domestic authorities and an application with the Court. 30. The police replied on 28 December 2010 and 12 January 2011 informing the applicant that he should submit his request for information to the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court. 31. On 12 January 2011 the applicant again asked the police to provide him with all relevant documents in their possession, arguing that the police had been trying to cover up the attack, which he claimed had been perpetrated by the group from the Mokošica neighbourhood. 32. On the same date the police replied, reiterating their previous advice that the case file had been forwarded to the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court. 33. On 16 March 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the State Attorney’s Office against G.M., M.T. and P.S., alleging that they had attacked him and his friend M.K. in bar C. He pointed out that they were part of a group from the Mokošica neighbourhood and that he had already been attacked by individuals from the same group on 4 March 2008. However, there had been no response by the domestic authorities to this attack. Lastly, he stressed this was a group of “skinheads” which had been terrorising the whole city. 34. On 29 March 2011 the State Attorney’s Office invited the applicant for an interview and requested that the police provide all the information they had concerning the offence. 35. On 1 April 2011 the police replied that they had instituted minor offences proceedings in the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court concerning the events in question. 36. On 13 April 2011 the State Attorney’s Office questioned the applicant and the record of his statement, together with the criminal complaint, was forwarded to the police on 14 April 2011 with an order for further investigation into the matter. 37. On 26 April 2011 the State Attorney’s Office questioned M.K., who confirmed the applicant’s version of events and described how he himself had also been attacked. 38. On 17 May 2011 the police reported to the State Attorney’s Office that they had questioned several people and were searching for other witnesses to the events. 39. On 19 May 2011 the State Attorney’s Office urged the police to speed up their work. 40. On 20 May 2011 the police submitted a report to the State Attorney’s Office. 41. On 30 May 2011 the State Attorney’s Office asked an investigating judge of the Dubrovnik County Court (Županijski sud u Dubrovniku) to conduct a judicial investigation concerning the applicant’s complaints. 42. In the period between 13 and 14 June 2011 the investigating judge questioned the applicant and several other individuals and commissioned a medical expert report concerning the applicant’s injuries. 43. The medical expert submitted his report on 14 July 2011. The relevant part of the report reads: “The medical records indicate that Tomislav Remetin sustained cuts on the area of his left brow and right shoulder, and abrasions on the right elbow. Each of these injuries itself and all the injuries taken together represent a minor bodily injury. ... ” 44. On 28 July 2011 the State Attorney’s Office rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint against P.S. on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed any offence against the applicant. The applicant was instructed that he could take over the criminal prosecution against P.S. as subsidiary prosecutor. 45. On the same date, the State Attorney’s Office indicted G.M. and M.T. in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Dubrovniku) on charges of violent behaviour. The relevant part of the indictment reads: “... on 19 December 2010, at around 3.00 a.m., in Dubrovnik, in bar C., based on a previous agreement, for no particular reason and in order to act violently, together with other unidentified persons, G.M. approached Tomislav Remetin, who was sitting at the bar, and head-butted and punched him several times on the head, after which M.T., together with other unidentified persons, continued to punch [Tomislav Remetin] all over his head and body, also throwing bottles and glasses at him, which made Tomislav Remetin leave the bar in fear, and after he had returned for his things, G.M. approached him again and punched him several times on the head, while other unidentified persons also started to punch and kick [Tomislav Remetin], and, after Tomislav Remetin fell to the floor, continued to hit him, which caused Tomislav Remetin [to suffer] cuts on the area of his left brow and right shoulder, and abrasions on the right elbow, which are minor bodily injuries, and subjected him to helplessness and feelings of anguish and inferiority ...” 46. On 1 September 2011 the president of the trial panel of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to whom the case had been assigned asked the president of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to exempt him from the case on the grounds of his friendship with the applicant’s father. The president of the court agreed to exempt him from the case on 9 September 2011. 47. On 19 June 2012 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court, in a separate set of proceedings, issued a penal order in respect of an individual, M.N., on charges of making death threats against the applicant with the aim of intimidating him to withdraw his criminal complaint. It would appear that these proceedings are still pending. 48. The first trial hearing before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court, scheduled for 22 January 2013, was adjourned due to the absence of a defence lawyer. 49. Another hearing, scheduled for 27 March 2013, was also adjourned because the applicant wished to retain a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. 50. A further hearing was held on 26 June 2013 at which the trial court heard the applicant’s evidence and questioned another witness. It also commissioned a medical expert report. 51. The medical expert submitted his report on 1 August 2013. He found that the applicant had sustained a number of cuts on his face around the left eye and right shoulder, as well as abrasions of the right arm. He found no other objectively identified injuries. 52. According to the available information no further procedural actions were taken and the proceedings are still pending before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court.