CASE OF Ž.B. v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković
5. The applicant was born in 1981. 6. On 3 May 2007 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the police alleging that in the past two years she had been a victim of multiple acts of domestic violence by her husband, B.B. 7. A preliminary police investigation showed that there was a suspicion that the applicant had been the victim of psychological and physical violence by B.B. during the period at issue. On the basis of those findings, the police forwarded the applicant’s criminal complaint to the relevant State Attorney’s Office. The police also forwarded the applicant’s medical records showing that in April 2007 she had sustained a contusion on her back after being pushed from a chair by B.B. 8. On 3 July 2007 the P. Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u P.) asked an investigating judge of the S. County Court (Županijski sud u S.) to open an investigation into the matter. 9. In the course of the investigation, the investigating judge heard the applicant and B.B. The latter denied the allegations of domestic violence. The judge also heard another witness, V.K., who confirmed that the applicant had often complained of emotional and physical harassment by her husband and had twice sustained injuries as a result of the alleged harassment. 10. On the basis of the results of the investigation, on 29 January 2008 the State Attorney’s Office indicted B.B. in the P. Municipal Court (Općinski sud u P.) on charges of domestic violence punishable under Article 215a of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 20 below). The relevant part of the indictment reads: “In the period between 1 January 2004 and 26 April 2007 in P., ... [B.B.] attacked his wife Ž.B. several times, telling her to ‘go back to her scumbags in the dump from which she had come’ and that she was worthless. He raised his hand [threatening] to hit her, punched her in the face and body, and ordered her to go to the corner of the room. In December 2004 he grabbed her head and banged it against the bathroom wall and on 27 April 2007 he pushed her from a chair, as a result of which she fell to the ground. In this manner he reduced Ž.B. to a position of helplessness and debasement ...” 11. During the proceedings, the trial court heard the applicant, B.B., and several witnesses. On 21 April 2009 it found B.B. guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. 12. On 2 March 2010, following an appeal lodged by B.B., the S. County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court on the grounds that all the relevant facts of the case had not been established. 13. In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court again heard the applicant, B.B. and a number of witnesses. It also examined further documents from other relevant State bodies concerning conflicts within the applicant’s family. 14. On 2 December 2010 the Municipal Court found B.B. guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. 15. B.B. challenged that judgment before the S. County Court. On 14 October 2011 the S. County Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for further examination on the grounds that some relevant facts still needed to be established. 16. In the resumed proceedings, on 16 January 2013 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the 2011 Criminal Code (see paragraph 21-22 below) had abolished the criminal offence of domestic violence under Article 215a of the 1997 Criminal Code, and that further proceedings against B.B. were therefore barred. 17. The State Attorney’s Office did not challenge that decision but the applicant lodged an appeal with the S. County Court. 18. On 28 February 2013 the S. County Court declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that she did not have legal standing to challenge the decision on the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings.