CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2DA412EC { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.05pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s36EA9DD { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCBC6AB24 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29DC30 { width:171.95pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF REMETIN v. CROATIA   (Application no. 29525/10)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   11 December 2012   FINAL   11/03/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Remetin v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 20 November 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 29525/10) 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 Tomislav Remetin (“the applicant”), on 27 April 2010. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     On 8 June 2011 the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment by a private individual were communicated to the Government under Articles 2 and 3 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). 4.     On 16 February 2012 the Vice-President of the First Section decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, to invite the parties to submit further observations in respect of the issues concerning the State’s positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention as regards the applicant’s complaints. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Dubrovnik. A.     Background to the case 6.     On 17 April 2003 at around 5.50 p.m., the applicant telephoned the Dubrovnik Police Station ( Policijska postaja Dubrovnik ) alleging that he had been attacked and beaten by an unknown man. Two police officers were immediately sent to the scene. 7.     The police officers interviewed the applicant, who was a boy of thirteen at the time, in the presence of his mother, L.R. The applicant stated that he had been playing in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School ( Osnovna škola Marina Držića ) with his friends D.D., D.B. and H.K. with a ball he had found there. At some point another boy had come and asked for the ball, saying that it had been his, but the applicant had not believed him and had refused to return it. Soon after, the boy’s father had come, grabbed the applicant’s t-shirt, and kicked and hit him on the back and head. The man had then taken the ball and left. 8.     The police established the identity of the man as I.Š. 9.     At around 7.00 p.m. on the same date the police interviewed I.Š., who denied that he had physically attacked the applicant. I.Š. stated that he had only grabbed the applicant’s t-shirt in order to take the ball. He had also shouted but had not used any physical force. 10.     At 8.15 p.m. the same day the applicant was seen by a doctor in the Dubrovnik Health Centre ( Dom zdravlja Dubrovnik ), who drew up a report on the injuries sustained by the applicant. The relevant part of the report reads:   “According to the person escorting the injured person (his father), [the injured person] was attacked by a man because that man thought that he had taken a ball from his son; [the man] slapped him and kicked him four to five times on the body; which all happened around 6 p.m. in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School. Diagnosis: bruising on the left cheek, bruising on the left lumbar region and around the spleen.” The injuries were qualified as lesser bodily injuries. B.     Minor offence proceedings against I.Š. 11.     On 6 May 2003 the Dubrovnik Police Station asked the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Dubrovniku ) to institute minor offence proceedings against I.Š. on charges of disturbing the public peace and order. 12.     On 9 June 2003 the applicant’s father informed the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court that he had orally requested information about the case but had been denied any information. On the same date the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court informed the applicant’s father that he could consult the case file and copy documents thereby. 13.     Hearings were held on 14 and 16 June 2004. 14.     On 7 April 2005 the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court discontinued the proceedings against I.Š. on the ground that the prosecution had become time-barred. C.     Criminal proceedings against I.Š. 15.     On 9 June 2003 the applicant’s father lodged a complaint with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku ) against I.Š., claiming that he had physically attacked the applicant and had threatened him. On 30 June and 28 August 2003 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked the Dubrovnik Police to investigate these allegations. 16.     The police interviewed the applicant’s father, the alleged assailant I.Š., and witnesses V.D., D.D., D.L.B., H.K. and D.Č. and obtained relevant medical documentation concerning the applicant. On 7 July, 11 July and 12   September 2003 respectively, the records of interviews and other documents were forwarded to the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office. 17.     In their statements to the police, D.D., D.L.B. and H.K. confirmed the applicant’s version of events. The relevant part of the record of D.D.’s interview reads: “... they had been sitting near an olive tree and Tomislav had found a ball which Š. (son of I.) had been looking for in the playground. Then a bearded man had jumped over a wall of the playground and stood in front of them asking who Tomi was. When Tomislav had answered, that man had attempted to catch him. He had then grabbed his t-shirt and slapped Tomislav twice and also kicked him twice in the hip area. After that, he had shouted at Tomislav and told him that he would beat him again if he ever went near his son again.” In his interview with the police D.L.B. stated:       “Around 5.30 p.m. a man who had come to the playground had approached them and asked who “Tomi” was. When Tomislav had answered, that man had hit him on the head with a ball he had found there (Tomislav had had his head covered with his hands at the time). After that he had grabbed [Tomislav’s] t-shirt and then kicked him in the area of his hips and then slapped him. The man had also threatened Tomislav, [telling him that he was] not to go near his children ...” The relevant part of the record of the interview with H.K. reads: “... he was together with Tomislav and D.D. in the playground when a bearded man had approached them and asked for Tomislav. When Tomislav had answered, the man had grabbed his t-shirt and slapped him and after that kicked him twice in the hip area. ... the man had also shouted at Tomislav and threatened that he would beat him again if he touched his son.” 18.     On 12 December 2003 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office indicted I.Š. in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Dubrovniku ) on charges of violent behaviour. The relevant part of the indictment reads: “... in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School, without any provocation, after he had approached Tomislav Remetin, who was there with his friends H.K., D.D. and D.B.L., in their presence and in the presence of other passers-by, [he] grabbed [Tomislav Remetin’s] t-shirt and kicked him twice on the back and then slapped him, threatening him not to go near his son, therefore, [he] degraded another person by subjecting them to violent abuse in public ...” 19.     The Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked that the applicant, H.K., D.D. and D.L.B. be called as prosecution witnesses and that the relevant medical documentation be examined. 20.     At a hearing held on 14 June 2006 I.Š. gave evidence. He reiterated that he had not used any physical force against the applicant and refused to answer any questions put to him by either the judge conducting the proceedings or the parties. 21.     At a hearing held on 8 September 2006 the applicant gave evidence. The relevant part of his statement reads: “While we were playing I heard that somebody, who was approaching me from behind, asked for Tomislav Remetin and one of my friends pointed at me. As that man was already really close to me, he grabbed my t-shirt in the area of my left shoulder towards my chest. I was already a bit turned towards him so he grabbed me with both hands and started shaking me, saying that he would kill me if I ever went near his son. I think he was also saying something else but I don’t remember now. Now I remember that he was saying something like I had pierced his son’s ball. I managed to get rid of his hold somehow, but while we were still close to each other, he kicked me a couple of times on my body somewhere in the area of my stomach, ribs and back. So, he kicked me on the rear side of the body and slapped me in the head two to three times.” 22.     After the examination of the applicant, the Deputy State Attorney reiterated his proposal that H.K., D.D. and D.L.B. be called as prosecution witnesses. The applicant’s father asked to be heard as a witness for the prosecution in addition to the applicant’s grandmother, who he stated had relevant knowledge about the medical treatment of the applicant. The defence lawyer asked that I.Š.’s children be called as defence witnesses. The judge conducting the proceedings dismissed all of the requests to call witnesses and concluded the proceedings, holding that all relevant facts had been sufficiently established. 23.     In his final address to the court, the Deputy State Attorney abandoned the prosecution of I.Š. on the ground that there was insufficient evidence against him. The relevant part of the record of the Deputy State Attorney’s address reads: “Namely, I consider that during the proceedings, with particular emphasis on today’s oral evidence given by the injured party Tomislav Remetin, there is insufficient evidence to, in my view, prove the substantive elements of the offence of violent behaviour under Article 331 of the Criminal Code. ... And so, I do not consider that the acts of the accused amount to any other criminal offence liable to public prosecution.” 24.     The applicant’s father stated that he was taking over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor on behalf of the applicant and requested the adjournment of the trial in order to prepare to conduct the prosecution. The judge conducting the proceedings adjourned the trial and ordered the applicant’s father to submit an indictment within eight days. 25.     On 15 September 2006 the applicant’s father lodged an indictment with the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against I.Š. on charges of violent behaviour, inflicting bodily injury, making serious threats and verbal insult. He also lodged a claim for damages ( imovinskopravni zahtjev ) against I.Š., seeking 10,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). 26.     On 19 September 2006 the applicant’s father asked the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to grant him legal aid, claiming that he did not have sufficient knowledge to prosecute the case himself and that he did not have sufficient means to afford legal representation. 27.     On the same date the applicant’s father complained to the Dubrovnik County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku ) that the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office had dismissed all of the charges against I.Š. without any witnesses being heard. 28.     On 3 October 2006 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s father’s request for legal aid on the grounds that applicable domestic law did not provide for legal aid in respect of the private prosecution of the offences for which I.Š. had been indicted. 29.     On 8 January 2007 the applicant’s father lodged an amended indictment with the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against I.Š. on charges of violent behaviour, inflicting bodily injury, serious threats, verbal insult and ill-treatment of a child or a minor. He also amended the claim for damages, increasing the award sought to HRK 90,000. 30.     On 12 January 2007 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court held a hearing at which I.Š. pleaded not guilty. The applicant’s father asked that H.K., D.D. and D.L.B. be called as prosecution witnesses in addition to the applicant’s grandmother and mother, who he submitted also had relevant knowledge of the event. The judge conducting the proceedings dismissed his request to call the witnesses and concluded the proceedings. 31.     On 12 January 2007 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court acquitted I.Š. of the charges of violent behaviour. The relevant part of the judgment reads: “Namely, by its nature, the offence under Article 331 of the Criminal Code (violent behaviour) is unprovoked conduct by a perpetrator which manifests itself in violent abuse, and the very intent to violently abuse [another person] is the mens rea of this offence. Contrary to this, this juvenile court, based on the statements of the aggrieved party, the minor Tomislav Remetin, and the accused, I.Š., which are mutually compatible in substance, namely, [they are] compatible in that they both speak about the children or about the ball and the child of the accused, can see provocation for the ... conduct of the accused, I.Š.” 32.     The Dubrovnik Municipal Court also discontinued the proceedings in respect of the charges of inflicting bodily injuries and making serious threats on the grounds that the prosecution for these offences had become time-barred because the applicant’s father had not lodged his indictment within the statutory limitation period set by applicable domestic law. The charges of verbal insult were not examined separately, as the Dubrovnik Municipal Court found that that offence had not been described in the body of the indictment. The Dubrovnik Municipal Court also instructed the applicant that his civil claim could be pursued in separate civil proceedings. 33.     On 31 January 2007 the applicant’s father lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court against the first-instance judgment, claiming that the Dubrovnik Municipal Court had erred in its factual findings and in the application of substantive and procedural law. 34.     On 11 March 2008 the Dubrovnik County Court upheld the part of the judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court by which I.Š. had been acquitted of the charges of violent behaviour, quashed the part of that judgment discontinuing the proceedings as regards the charges of inflicting bodily injury and making serious threats and ordered a retrial in respect of those charges. The County Court found that the statutory limitation period had stopped running when the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office had lodged the indictment against I.Š. with the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and not when the indictment had been lodged by the applicant as subsidiary prosecutor. 35.     On 22 April 2008 the Dubrovnik County State Attorney’s Office instructed the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office to take over the prosecution of I.Š. before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court on charges of making serious threats. 36.     On 8 May 2008 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office informed the Dubrovnik Municipal Court that it was taking over the prosecution of I.Š. on charges of making serious threats as indicted by the applicant’s father as subsidiary prosecutor. 37.     On 8 July 2008 the applicant’s father submitted an application to the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to expedite the proceedings. 38.     At a hearing   on 11 December 2008 the Deputy State Attorney amended the indictment against I.Š. The relevant part reads: “On 17 April 2003, at around 5.20 p.m., near no. 6 Voltina Street, Dubrovnik, in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School, after a physical conflict he had with Tomislav Remetin, with the intent of creating fear and anxiety, [he] told [Tomislav Remetin] that he was going to kill him if he ever went near his son again, which made Tomislav Remetin fear for his personal safety, therefore, [he] made a serious threat to another person that he would kill him ...” I.Š. pleaded not guilty and the applicant reiterated his previous statement. Witness H.K. gave evidence. The relevant part of the record of his statement reads:       “On that day, I was with the injured party, D.D. and D.L.B. in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School. We were playing around the school and at one point the accused came over. He asked for Tomislav Remetin and after that they had an argument over his son’s ball. The accused was shouting at Tomislav and after that he slapped him twice and I also saw that he kicked him in the liver or thereabouts but I don’t know which leg exactly or which side of the body he kicked Tomislav on.” 39.     Another hearing was held on 30 December 2008 at which witnesses D.D. and D.L.B. gave their evidence. Witness D.L.B. stated: “On that day Tomislav Remetin, H.K., D.D. and I, were playing in front of the Marin Držić Primary School. At one point I saw the accused jumping over a wall and then he asked for Tomislav Remetin. When Tomi responded, the accused hit him with a ball and then he started to beat him. I remember that he kicked him in the stomach area and after that he hit him on the head. He also started threatening him, [saying] “we will see”, and he was mentioning his sons.” Witness D.D. testified: “On that day I was sitting near an olive tree in the school’s playground and I saw the accused jumping over a wall and going towards Tomislav. I saw that he kicked [Tomislav] and slapped him twice. After that, he threatened that he would beat him if he ever went near his son ...” After examination of the witnesses, the judge conducting the proceedings dismissed all proposals for the examination of other witnesses and concluded the trial. 40.     On 30 December 2008 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings against I.Š. on charges of violent behaviour, inflicting bodily injuries, making serious threats, defamation and ill-treatment of a child or a minor on the grounds that the accused had already been acquitted by a final judgment for the same facts under a different legal qualification. It also instructed the applicant that he could pursue his civil claim in separate civil proceedings. 41.     On 9 January 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the proceedings with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) which was forwarded to the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) for examination. The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and the Dubrovnik County Court had lasted for an excessively long time and that there was a possibility that the proceedings would become time-barred. 42.     On 20 January 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court against the first ‑ instance judgment. On 23 January 2009 the applicant’s father also lodged an appeal. 43.     On 9 April 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and the Dubrovnik County Court as ill-founded. The Supreme Court found that the relevant period to be taken into account started on 15 September 2006 when the applicant lodged his claim for damages in the criminal proceedings and that the proceedings had therefore lasted for two years, six months and twenty-five days, which was not considered as excessively long. 44.     On 5 March 2009 the Dubrovnik County Court quashed the judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court and ordered a retrial. The County Court found that the judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court had procedural defects since it referred to the charges of violent behaviour which had been finally adjudicated and thus not susceptible to any further examination or decision. 45.     At a hearing on 6 April 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings against I.Š. on charges of inflicting bodily injuries and making serious threats on the grounds that I.Š. had already been acquitted by a final judgment for the same facts under a different legal qualification. The applicant was instructed that he could pursue his civil claim in separate civil proceedings. 46.     On 6 April 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court. On 7 April 2009 the applicant’s father also lodged an appeal. 47.     On 28 May 2009 the Dubrovnik County Court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the prosecution had become time-barred on 17 April 2009. 48.     On 9 June 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Supreme Court by which his complaint about the length of the proceedings had been dismissed. This complaint was forwarded to a three judge appeal panel of the Supreme Court. 49.     On 2 July 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Dubrovnik County Court complaining about the manner in which the provisions of the criminal law had been applied in connection with a violent attack against him. 50.     On 26 November 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the proceedings in issue had not concerned any of his civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him. 51.     On 20 October 2010 a three judge appeal panel of the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court in respect of the length of the proceedings inadmissible as having been lodged out of time. D.     Civil proceedings instituted by the applicant 52.     On 26 February 2009 the applicant lodged a civil action in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against I.Š., claiming compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage. The applicant contended that the physical attack by I.Š. had made him feel humiliated and had caused him continuous mental suffering. 53.     On 9 December 2009 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action on the grounds that it had become time-barred. The Municipal Court found that the applicant had lodged his civil action with the court conducting the criminal proceedings on 15 September 2006, which was out of the statutory limitation period set by applicable domestic law. This period could only have been extended if criminal responsibility had been established, which was not the case in respect of the applicant’s claim as the proceedings against I.Š. had been discontinued by the Dubrovnik County Court. 54.     On 25 January 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Dubrovnik County Court, complaining that the Dubrovnik Municipal Court had erred in the application of applicable substantive and procedural law. 55.     On 24 May 2011 the Dubrovnik County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment on the grounds that the applicant’s civil action had become time-barred. 56.     On 26 September 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Dubrovnik County Court. It appears that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Relevant domestic law Constitution 57.     The relevant part of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998, 113/2000, 124/2000, 28/2001, 41/2001, 55/2001, 76/2010, 85/2010) reads: Article 35 “Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life, dignity, reputation and honour.” Constitutional Court Act 58.     The relevant part of section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos.   99/1999, 29/2002, 49/2002) reads:   “1. Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if he or she deems that a decision of a state body, a body of local and regional self-government, or a legal person with public authority concerning his or her rights and obligations, or about a suspicion or an accusation of a criminal act, has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms, or his or her right to local and regional self-government guaranteed by the Constitution (hereinafter: a constitutional right)...” Criminal Code 59.     The relevant parts of the Criminal Code ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette no. 110/1997, 27/1998, 50/2000, 129/2000, 51/2001) provide: Article 8 “(1) Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by the State Attorney’s Office in the interest of the Republic of Croatia and its citizens. (2) In exceptional circumstances the law may provide for criminal proceedings in respect of certain criminal offences to be instituted on the basis of a private prosecution or for the State Attorney’s Office to institute criminal proceedings following [a private] application.” BODILY INJURY Article 98 “Anyone who inflicts bodily injury on another or impairs another’s health shall be fined or sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.” MAKING THREATS Article 129 “(1) Whoever seriously threatens another person with harm so as to intimidate or disturb him shall be fined a minimum of one hundred and fifty daily wages or sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. (2) Whoever seriously threatens to kill or to inflict serious bodily injury on another person, or to kidnap or deprive a person of his liberty, or inflict harm by starting a fire, causing an explosion by using ionizing radiation or by other dangerous means, or to destroy a person’s social or financial standing, shall be fined or sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. (3) If the criminal offence referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article is committed against an official or a responsible person in connection with his work or position, or against a number of people, or if it has caused a major disturbance to citizens, or if the threatened person is thus put in a difficult position for a long period of time, or if it is committed while the perpetrator is a member of a group or a criminal organisation, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term from three months to three years. (4) Criminal proceedings for the criminal offence referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article may be instituted following [a private] application.” VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR Article 331 “(1) Whoever degrades another person by subjecting them to violent abuse, ill-treatment or particularly offensive behaviour in public shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term from three months to three years.” Code of Criminal Procedure 60.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002 and 62/2003) provide: Article 2 “(1) Criminal proceedings shall only be instituted and conducted at the request of a qualified prosecutor. ... (2) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the State Attorney and in respect of criminal offences that may be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor. (3) Unless otherwise provided by law, the State Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person. (4) Where the State Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings, the injured party may take his place as a subsidiary prosecutor under the conditions prescribed by this Act.” 61.     Articles 47 to 61 regulated the rights and duties of private prosecutors and of injured parties acting as subsidiary prosecutors. The Criminal Code distinguished between these two roles. A private prosecutor ( privatni tužitelj ) was an injured party who brought a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such a prosecution was expressly prescribed by the Criminal Code (these were offences of a lesser degree). An injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor ( oštećeni kao tužitelj ) was a person taking over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecuting authorities, for whatever reason, had decided not to prosecute. If the injured party was a minor, he or she was represented by his or her legal guardian during the proceedings. Pursuant to Article 58, the State Attorney’s Office was authorised, on a discretionary basis, to take over a prosecution from a subsidiary prosecutor at any point before the end of the trial. Minor Offences against Public Order and Peace Act 62.     The relevant part of the Minor Offences against Public Order and Peace Act ( Zakon o prekršajima protiv javnog reda i mira , Official Gazette nos. 5/1990, 47/1990 and 29/1994) reads: Section 6 “Anyone who behaves in a particularly offensive or rude manner in a public place by insulting citizens or disturbing the peace shall be liable to a fine ... or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding sixty days.” State Administration System Act 63.     The relevant provision of the State Administration System Act ( Zakon o sustavu državne uprave , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos. 75/1993, 92/1996, 48/1999, 15/2000, 127/2000, 59/2001, 199/2003, 79/2007), reads as follows: Section 14 “Damage caused to a citizen, legal entity or any other party by an illegal or irregular act of the state administration body, local administration body or any legal entity with public powers when exercising authorities of the state administration, shall be redressed by the Republic of Croatia.” B.     Relevant domestic practice Constitutional Court’s practice 64.     On 14 May 2001 in case no. U-III-791/1997 the Constitutional Court accepted an injured party’s constitutional complaint concerning a violation of the right to life. The relevant part of the decision reads: “Under the [Code of Criminal Procedure], in a situation where the State Attorney is the prosecutor, the injured party has only very limited rights in the proceedings. However, as soon as the State Attorney is no longer a party (if he drops the charges) the injured party can act as a subsidiary prosecutor in the proceedings. In other words, when the State Attorney does not appear [as a prosecutor] in the proceedings, the [injured] party is (or can be) the subsidiary prosecutor. This should be, mutatis mutandis , applied in respect of a constitutional complaint. Since the State Attorney cannot lodge a constitutional complaint ... the injured party can represent himself. In this case [the injured party] can lodge a constitutional complaint.” 65.     In its decision of 13 February 2004 in case no. U-IIIA-232/2003 the Constitutional Court declared a subsidiary prosecutor’s constitutional complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings inadmissible on the grounds that the proceedings in issue had not concerned his civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him. The relevant part of the decision reads: “It is clear from the constitutional complaint that the criminal proceedings ... did not concern the applicant’s civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him. In the criminal proceedings the applicant was not the defendant and he failed to lodge a civil claim, which he had notably pursued in separate civil proceedings. Therefore ... the applicant does not have the necessary locus standi before the Constitutional Court ...” 66.     The Constitutional Court followed the same approach in its decision of 23 December 2004 in case no. U-III-2729/2004 in which it declared a subsidiary prosecutor’s constitutional complaint concerning the outcome of criminal proceedings inadmissible on the same basis as noted above. 67.     In its decision of 22 October 2008 in case no. U-IIIVs-3511/2006, the Constitutional Court accepted a constitutional complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings lodged by a subsidiary prosecutor who had not had lodged a civil claim in those criminal proceedings. The relevant part of the decision reads: “The approach taken by the lower courts, by which the applicant did not have the right to lodge a length-of-proceedings complaint because she, as a subsidiary prosecutor in criminal proceedings, ... had failed to lodge a civil claim ... reflects the approach previously taken by this court. ... [T]he Constitutional Court considers that that approach should be revisited on the grounds of the public interest and the protection of victims’ rights. ... Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers that the question of whether a subsidiary prosecutor in criminal proceedings has a right to have the competent court decide within a reasonable time [whether] the defendant be found guilty and punished according to law, cannot be considered only from the perspective of the civil claim which the injured party may have against the defendant. Such a restrictive approach would deprive the subsidiary prosecutor [of the ability] to exercise his right to bring a subsidiary prosecution and it would run contrary to the principle that rights should be effective ...” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 8 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 68.     The applicant complained, under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to afford him adequate protection from an act of violence. The Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the present case these complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ... 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A.     Admissibility 1.     Exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)     The parties’ arguments 69.     The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic criminal and civil law remedies. They submitted that if the applicant had believed that the dismissal of charges against I.Š. by the State Attorney or the fact that the prosecution had become time-barred had violated his rights, he could have lodged criminal complaints against the officials involved in his case on charges of abuse of authority and negligent performance of duties. That would have led to a special inquiry capable of establishing whether there had been any omissions in the conduct of the competent state organs. The Government also pointed out that, as regards the length of the criminal proceedings, the applicant had had an effective and available domestic remedy – a request for protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and for compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings. The applicant had availed himself of this remedy and the Supreme Court had dismissed his complaint. However, the applicant had failed to use further remedies against that decision in due time, which had deprived the domestic authorities of the opportunity to decide on his complaint. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that the case-law of the Constitutional Court had shown that a constitutional complaint is an effective domestic remedy that can be used by an injured party in respect of the length of the criminal proceedings. 70.     The Government also argued that the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages under the relevant provisions of the Civil Obligations Act against I.Š. Civil liability was much broader than criminal liability and the domestic courts could have awarded damages regardless of any criminal conviction. As regards protection against alleged unlawfulness in the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Government pointed out that the applicant could have lodged a civil action against the Republic of Croatia pursuant to the Public Administration System Act ( Zakon o sustavu državne uprave ). 71.     The applicant argued that he had exhausted all available legal remedies. (b)     The Court’s assessment 72.     The Court reiterates that under Article 35   §   1 of the Convention, it may only deal with an application after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Mifsud v.   France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, §   15, ECHR 2002-VIII). The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires an applicant to make normal use of remedies which are effective, sufficient and accessible in respect of his Convention grievances. To be effective, a remedy must be capable of resolving directly the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v.   Hungary , no.   47940/99, §   30, 20   July   2004). 73.     As to the Government’s arguments concerning the ability for the applicant to lodge a criminal complaint on charges of abuse of authority and negligent performance of duties against the state officials involved in his case, the Court notes that the applicant complained to both the police and the State Attorney’s Office of a violent attack against him by another individual. These allegations were, prima facie, supported by the statements of three witnesses and relevant medical documentation. Moreover, the applicant actively participated in the proceedings that followed his complaints as a subsidiary prosecutor. 74.     The applicant also complained before various domestic authorities of a lack of diligence in the proceedings and about the possibility that the prosecution of I.Š. could become time-barred. These actions taken by the applicant should have been followed by the effective implementation of domestic criminal-law provisions by the domestic authorities which would satisfy the requirements of the State’s positive obligations under the Convention. However, the Court does not see how the possibility of lodging a criminal complaint against the state officials involved in the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaint of a violent attack by another individual could be considered as having satisfied these requirements. Therefore, having in mind the actions taken by the applicant, the Court considers that the applicant was not required to lodge a criminal complaint as suggested by the Government. 75.     As to the Government’s argument that the applicant had failed to pursue his complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Court considers that the length-of-proceedings remedies were insufficient, as it was not merely the length of the proceedings which was in issue (see, mutatis mutandis , Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 169-170, 9 April 2009). Rather, the main question here is whether in the circumstances of the case seen as a whole the State could be said to have complied with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. 76.     As regards the Government’s argument that the applicant could have pursued his complaints in civil proceedings against I.Š. and also against the State under the Public Administration System Act, the Court firstly notes that the applicant lodged a civil action in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against I.Š. seeking damages (see paragraphs 52-56). However, owing to the fact that the criminal proceedings against I.Š. had become time-bared, the Dubrovnik Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action. In any event the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that respect (see X and Y v.   the Netherlands , 26 March 1985, §   27, Series   A no.   91; August v.   the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   36505/02, 21   January 2003; and M.C. v.   Bulgaria , no.   39272/98, §