CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9DD7E68A { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.65pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s79B996A6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.05pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s867F9C1B { width:175.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF F.O. v. CROATIA (Application no. 29555/13)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Inadequate response of domestic authorities to secondary school teacher’s verbal abuse towards pupil • Art 8 applicable to particularly disrespectful insults which caused emotional distress, on the part of teacher in position of trust in relation to applicant and in front of other pupils • No room for tolerating any form of violence, including verbal abuse, by teacher towards pupil   STRASBOURG 22 April 2021   FINAL   06/09/2021     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of F.O. v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President ,   Ksenija Turković,   Alena Poláčková,   Péter Paczolay,   Gilberto Felici,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   29555/13) 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 F.O. (“the applicant”), on 15 April 2013; the decision to give notice to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) of his complaints concerning his alleged harassment by a teacher in a State school and the alleged failure on the part of the State authorities to adequately react to his allegations, under Articles 3, 8 and   13   of the Convention, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2017 and 23 March 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s alleged harassment by a teacher in a State school and the alleged failure on the part of the State authorities to respond effectively to his complaints of harassment. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in November 1993. He was represented by Mr   M. Ščetar, a lawyer practising in Križevci. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background to the case 5.     Between 2008 and 2012 the applicant was a pupil in a State secondary school. 6.     On 19 September 2011 the applicant and several of his classmates were late for their mathematics class with their teacher, R.V. When they entered the classroom, R.V. started shouting, telling the applicant that he was “a moron ( kreten jedan ), an idiot ( idijot ), a fool ( budala ), hillbilly ( seljačina ), [and] a stupid cop ( žandar glupi )” (because the applicant’s father worked in the police). 7.     On 20 September 2011, after the applicant had reported the insults to the headteacher, R.V. stated during his class that “... when you say to a fool that he is a fool, that should not be an insult for him. The headteacher called me saying that I had insulted some pupils. You don’t know what the insults are, but you will see what the insults are.” 8.     On 28 September 2011, during class, R.V. approached the applicant and asked him to turn to a page in a book. As the applicant turned to the wrong page, R.V. said “You, fool, not that page. I didn’t mean to insult you, because I know you will call your dad.” 9.     In the period between September and December 2011 on two occasions the applicant underwent psychological treatment related to the alleged harassment by R.V. His general practitioner gave a working diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder related to his harassment at school by R.V., and a psychologist in the local hospital found that owing to the psychological harassment at school the applicant was suffering from an acute anxiety disorder and recommended increased support and understanding at school. The psychologist also found that the applicant was otherwise growing up in a functional family and that he was very good at school. 10.     According to the applicant, his conflict with R.V. and R.V.’s subsequent involvement in his final mathematics examination resulted in his poor overall performance. He therefore failed to get on to his chosen university course. 11.     According to a report of the National Centre for the External Evaluation of Education ( Nacionalni centar za vanjsko vrednovanje obrazovanja ) of 5 December 2014, which the Government provided to the Court, the examination process was anonymised and the reason for the applicant’s poor performance was his failure to follow properly the instructions for filling in the examination papers. administrative inquiry concerning the applicant’s allegations of harassment 12.     By a letter of 21 September 2011 the applicant’s father informed the school authorities, the Ombudsperson for Children ( Pravobraniteljica za djecu ), the education inspectorate, the police and the competent State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo ) of the applicant’s harassment by R.V., and requested protection for him. He repeated the same complaints on 28 September 2011. 13.     In connection with the applicant’s allegations, on 3 October 2011 the school psychologist invited R.V. for an interview. R.V. admitted that he had said the words alleged by the applicant during the event of 19 September 2011 (see paragraph 6 above) but denied using the insult “stupid cop”. He also argued that he had not addressed the applicant personally, but a group of pupils, and that he could not understand why the applicant felt so affected by the event. The school psychologist reproached R.V. for using inappropriate words, which he fully accepted, and he promised not to use insults anymore. 14.     On 4 October 2011 the school psychologist interviewed the applicant. He stated that he felt stressed and uncomfortable during mathematics classes because of the situation with R.V. He also explained that he wanted to either change school or class, or have the teacher removed from his class. The school psychologist insisted that the applicant should try to talk to R.V. and invited him to inform her by 6 October 2011 whether he would be willing to do that. The applicant did not inform the school psychologist of his decision. 15.     On 7 October 2011 the applicant’s father informed the Ministry of Education ( Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i športa – hereinafter “the Ministry”) of the applicant’s harassment by R.V. and requested protection for him. The Ministry replied on 4 November 2011, indicating that the case had been forwarded to the Education Agency ( Agencija za odgoj i obrazovanje – hereinafter “the Agency”). 16.     The applicant’s father’s complaints resulted in an assessment of the situation by the Agency on 22 November 2011. This assessment consisted of an interview with R.V., the school psychologist, the headteacher, the applicant and his classmates. The Agency also analysed the relevant documents and conducted an anonymous survey among the pupils concerning their satisfaction with R.V.’s teaching. 17.     The Agency found that R.V. was duly complying with all his teaching tasks. He was a renowned mathematics teacher, who had even received an award from the Minister of Education for his work. The anonymous survey showed that the pupils were satisfied with R.V., and that their major objection was that he should spend more time with less successful pupils. Only two pupils stated that they would like to change the teacher. 18.     The same view was repeated in individual interviews with the pupils conducted by an Agency official. She also interviewed R.V., who stated that he had not had any malicious intention when being angry at the pupils for being late, and that he could not understand why the applicant had become so upset. The interviews with the headteacher and the school psychologist suggested that the applicant’s father had been very upset about the situation. He refused to discuss the matter further with them and preferred to have the competent institutions investigate the case. 19.     In its conclusions, the Agency stressed that R.V. was a good teacher with good intentions, and that he regretted not having had an opportunity to discuss the possible problems with the applicant’s father. The Agency found that the situation created by the conflict had damaged the applicant’s progress. It suggested that the matter be resolved by a discussion between the school authorities and the applicant’s father. It also instructed the school authorities to report on any further developments in the case. 20.     After several unsuccessful attempts to hold a meeting at the school, on 14 December 2011 the applicant’s father attended a meeting with the headteacher. According to a report from the meeting prepared by the headteacher, the applicant’s father had explained that his son was now satisfied with his relationship with R.V., and that their conflict had been settled. 21.     The school authorities informed the Agency and the Ombudsperson for Children of the matter. The applicant’s criminal complaint 22.     On 4 November 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the police, alleging harassment by R.V. 23.     In the course of the proceedings, the police and the relevant State Attorney’s Office questioned the applicant and a number of pupils and officials from the school, as well as R.V. They also obtained relevant documentation concerning the applicant’s complaints. 24.     Several of the pupils or former pupils from the school stated that the teacher R.V. sometimes used inappropriate and insulting language. He was particularly harsh with those who were not good at mathematics, such as the applicant. One pupil, L.J., stated that he had even stopped paying attention to words such as “fools”, “idiots” and “idlers” as it had become commonplace in the mathematics class. Some of the pupils considered the use of such language to be a form of joking on the part of the teacher. A former pupil, S.J., stated that the teacher had made some comments of a sexual nature concerning her during lessons. Pupil M.J. explained that there had been an inquiry by the education authorities in the course of which the pupils had been asked to reply to a questionnaire. Most of the pupils had been afraid to answer the questions honestly, as had been the case with M.J. who did not want to have problems. M.J. also explained that before the questionnaire, there had been another one organised within the school to which the pupils had answered honestly but subsequently the teacher R.V. had gone “crazy” and yelled at them. It was one of the reasons why they had not honestly answered the questionnaire organised by the education authorities. 25.     On 18 June 2012 the State Attorney’s Office dismissed the applicant’s criminal complaint. The relevant part of the decision reads: “The statements of the pupils show that the suspect has an unconventional approach. Some of the pupils no longer pay attention to what he says when teaching, because on several occasions he has used improper words. However, he has never addressed a particular pupil. It can therefore be concluded in the case at issue, given the circumstances in which the impugned conduct occurred, that the insults were not of such intensity as to amount to harassment. In accordance with the courts’ case-law, examples of psychological harassment concern the recurrent insulting of minors, as a result of which they sustain severe psychological trauma damaging their physical and mental health. Although [the applicant] sought medical treatment in connection with the impugned conduct, and although he suffered certain health problems, they were not of such intensity that it can be concluded that his physical and mental health was damaged. Moreover, in order to amount to psychological harassment, insults should not only be the result of an aroused reaction, but the result of an intensive aversion to the victim, and an expression of cruel and inhuman behaviour. From the available information, and in particular from the statements of [the applicant’s] classmates, it cannot be concluded that the suspect’s conduct towards [the applicant] was of such a nature that it would [amount to] cruel and inhuman behaviour. This is particularly true in view of [the pupils’] statements that [R.V.] usually behaved in an unusual manner, and that some of the pupils did not pay attention [to such behaviour], and the victim himself did not suffer further [adverse consequences such as] bad marks at school.” 26.     The State Attorney’s Office advised the applicant that he could take over the criminal prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor in relation to the alleged offence of harassment or institute a private prosecution in relation to charges of insult. proceedings before the Constitutional Court 27.     In August 2012 the applicant brought his complaints before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ). He alleged, in particular, harassment by the teacher at school and an inadequate response on the part of the school, the Ministry, the Agency and the State Attorney’s Office concerning his complaints of harassment. He also challenged the decision concerning the evaluation of his final mathematics examination (see paragraphs 10-11 above). 28.     On 18 October 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaints inadmissible on the grounds that the State Attorney’s Office’s decision and the decision on the evaluation of his final mathematics examination had not been measures or decisions which had decided any of his rights on the merits against which a constitutional complaint was permitted. 29.     The decisions of the Constitutional Court were served on the applicant on 30 October 2012. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Relevant domestic law Constitution 30.     The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 56/1990, as amended) prohibits any form of ill-treatment (Article 23). It also guarantees the right to respect for and legal protection of private life and dignity (Article 35). The Constitution obliges the State to protect children and youth (Article 63) and also provides that “[e]veryone shall have the duty to protect children ...” (Article 65). 31.     The relevant part of section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act, and the related Constitutional Court’s case-law, are set out in Remetin v. Croatia (no. 29525/10, §§ 58 and 64-67, 11 December 2012), and Pavlović and Others v. Croatia (no. 13274/11, §§ 17-21, 2 April 2015). Criminal law provisions 32.     The Criminal Code ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette no. 110/1997, as amended), as applicable at the material time, in Article 213 proscribed neglect and ill-treatment of a child or minor. This concerned, inter alia , the serious neglect of duties in education (paragraph 1) and direct abuse (paragraph 2). The aggravating forms of the offence, relating to serious bodily injury or sever impairment of health resulting from the neglect of duties or abuse, were proscribed in paragraph 3. 33.     Under the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , Official Gazette, nos. 152/2008, with further amendments) there is no possibility of a judicial review of the decision not to prosecute. However, if the State Attorney declines to prosecute, the victim has the right to take over the prosecution (as a “subsidiary prosecutor”) and bring a case before the relevant criminal court (Articles 55 and 58). Supervision of the education system 34.     The relevant Law on education in primary and secondary schools ( Zakon o odgoju i obrazovanju u osnovnoj i srednjoj školi , Official Gazette no. 87/2008, as amended) provided for the right of individual complaint as one of the basic rights of pupils (section 61(1)). It also required schools to take necessary measures for the protection of pupils’ well-being (section   67). Section 70 provided for the active protection of pupils from any form of harassment or ill-treatment and provided for the duty of school authorities to report such occurrences to the competent authorities (section   70). Under sections 138 and 149, the Law envisaged supervision of the school education system through education inspection and professional pedagogical supervision. 35.     Education inspection was to be carried out by the education inspectorate, which is one of the Ministry’s organisational units. Under section 11(1.13) of the relevant Education Inspection Act ( Zakon o prosvjetnoj inspekciji , Official Gazette no. 61/2011, as amended), one of the central duties of education inspection was to control the manner in which educational staff in schools complied with their duties and responsibilities towards pupils. In cases of ill-treatment or inadequate behaviour towards a pupil, an education inspector could question the pupil (section 15). If professional pedagogical supervision was needed prior to the adoption of a decision by the education inspectorate, a further assessment could be commissioned. If the results of the inspection provided a sufficient basis for a decision, the education inspector could order the adoption of relevant measures for the protection of pupils, as well as institute minor-offence proceedings, or, in the event of findings relating to criminal conduct, refer the case to the competent prosecuting authorities (sections 23-25). 36.     The applicable Law on professional pedagogical supervision ( Zakon o stručno-pedagoškom nadzoru , Official Gazette no. 73/1997) envisages professional pedagogical supervision as an assessment of the performance of teaching tasks, and authorises a supervising official to indicate the measures which need to be taken for the elimination of identified irregularities and omissions (sections 8-12). 37.     The Education Agency Act ( Zakon o Agenciji za odgoj i obrazovanje , Official Gazette no. 85/2006) establishes the Education Agency as the competent body to carry out professional pedagogical supervision (section 4(3)). Under section 5, it obliges school authorities to provide relevant documents and cooperate in the supervision process. Civil Obligations Act 38.     The Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette no. 35/2005, as amended) provides for the possibility of instituting civil proceedings to protect the rights of personality, which include, inter alia , the right to physical and mental health and dignity (sections 19, 1046, 1048 and 1100). International law and materials United Nations 39.     The Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 requires that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration (Article 3). With regard to measures of school discipline, it provides that States Parties must take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with that convention (Article 28 §   2). 40.     The report by the Secretary General to the General Assembly on the promotion and protection of the rights of children of 29 August 2006 (A/61/299) identified violence perpetrated by teachers and other school staff, which also includes humiliating forms of psychological punishment, as one of the issues requiring a proper social reaction (paragraph 50). It stressed that those who oversee and work in educational settings have a duty to provide safe environments which support and promote children’s dignity and development. 41.     With regard to the relevant measures which should be adopted, the report made the following recommendations: “98.     I urge States to prohibit all forms of violence against children, in all settings, including all corporal punishment, harmful traditional practices, ... and ... other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as required by international treaties, ... 105.     I recommend that States should build community confidence in the justice system by bringing all perpetrators of violence against children to justice and ensure that they are held accountable through appropriate criminal, civil, administrative and professional proceedings and sanctions. ... 111.     ... I recommend that States: (b)     Ensure that school principals and teachers use non-violent teaching and learning strategies and adopt classroom management and disciplinary measures that are not based on fear, threats, humiliation or physical force; ...” 42.     The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in General Comment No.   8 (2006) on the right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment ( inter alia , Article 19, Article 28 paragraph 2, and Article 37), CRC/C/GC/8 of 2   March 2007, stressed that, in addition to corporal punishment, which is considered to be invariably degrading, there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also cruel and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These include, for example, punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child (paragraph 11). The Committee on the Rights of the Child rejected any justification of violence and humiliation as forms of punishment for children but stressed that this did not mean rejecting the positive concept of discipline (paragraph 13). The Committee further insisted on the distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, and their unique human potential, as well as their vulnerability, which all demanded the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence (paragraph 21). The Committee also emphasised that eliminating violent and humiliating punishment of children, through law reform and other necessary measures, was an immediate and unqualified obligation of States (paragraph 22). 43.     The United Nations General Assembly adopted a Resolution on the rights of the child, A/RES/62/141, 22 February 2008, which in the relevant part provides: “52.     Condemns all forms of violence against children, including ... mental, psychological ... violence ... and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, ... and urges States to strengthen efforts to prevent and protect children from all such violence through a comprehensive approach and to develop a multifaceted and systematic framework, which is integrated into national planning processes, to respond to violence against children; ... 57.     Urges all States: ... ( b )     To consider taking appropriate measures to assert the right of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity and to prohibit and eliminate any emotional or physical violence or any other humiliating or degrading treatment; ( c )     To give priority attention to the prevention of all forms of violence against children and to addressing its underlying causes, through a systematic, comprehensive and multifaceted approach; ( d )     To protect children from all forms of violence or abuse by all those who work with and for children, including in educational settings ...” 44.     In United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) General Comment No. 13 (2011) on the right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence, 18 April 2011, UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/13, the Committee stressed that the term “mental violence” encompasses psychological maltreatment, mental abuse, verbal abuse and emotional abuse or neglect, including insults, name-calling, humiliation, belittling, ridiculing and hurting a child’s feelings. The Committee also noted the following (paragraph 17): “... The Committee has consistently maintained the position that all forms of violence against children, however light, are unacceptable. ‘All forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children. Frequency, severity of harm and intent to harm are not prerequisites for the definitions of violence. States parties may refer to such factors in intervention strategies in order to allow proportional responses in the best interests of the child, but definitions must in no way erode the child’s absolute right to human dignity and physical and psychological integrity by describing some forms of violence as legally and/or socially acceptable.” Council of Europe 45.     The relevant early Council of Europe materials concerning child protection are summarised in O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no.   35810/09, §§   91-92, ECHR 2014. 46.     Further relevant material of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), reaffirmed in Resolution 1803 (2011) on Education against violence at school, includes: Recommendation 1666 (2004) on a Europe-wide ban on corporal punishment of children; Recommendation 1778 (2007) on child victims: stamping out all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse; and Recommendation 1934 (2010) on child abuse in institutions: ensuring full protection of the victims. 47.     In the latter Recommendation, PACE expressed its concerns over the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children in various institutions, including State and private educational facilities. It therefore urged enhanced protection by adopting legislation to explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children: physical and mental violence, injury or abuse (including sexual abuse), neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, in childcare institutions, State and private educational institutions, correctional facilities and leisure associations, among other institutions. It also stressed the need to criminalise any intentional abuse of a child by a person in a recognised position of trust, authority or influence in relation to the child, and recommended the adoption of legislation providing for systematic prosecution in all kinds of child abuse cases, based on the principle of the “graded prosecution” of child abuse according to the gravity of offences, which includes measures against all kinds of child abuse (sexual, physical and emotional). Moreover, with regard to the punishment of minors in institutions, the legislative measures are required so as to define as illegal and exclude certain practices which are contrary to their dignity and rights. 48.     In Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)10 of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to member States on integrated national strategies for the protection of children from violence, the Committee of Ministers also emphasised the following: “Protection against violence All children have the right to protection from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation ... while in the care of ... any other person who has the care of the child. Prevention The national legal framework should prioritise the prevention of violence and safeguard the rights of the child by taking action, such as: Prohibition of violence The state has an explicit obligation to secure children’s right to protection from all forms of violence, however mild. Appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures should be taken to prohibit all violence against children at all times and in all settings and to render protection to all children within the state’s jurisdiction. Legal defences and authorisations for any form of violence, including for the purposes of correction, discipline or punishment, within or outside families, should be repealed. Prohibition should imperatively cover: ... g.     all forms of violence in school; h.     ... all other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of children, both physical and psychological ...” 49.     Appendix 2 to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)10 defines the term “psychological violence” as insults, name-calling, ignoring, isolation, rejection, threats, manipulation, emotional indifference, and belittlement, witnessing domestic violence, and other behaviour that can be detrimental to a child’s psychological development and well-being. 50.     The European Social Charter (revised), opened for signature on 3   May 1996, ETS 163, provides that with a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right of children and young persons to grow up in an environment which encourages the full development of their personality and of their physical and mental capacities, the States must undertake all appropriate and necessary measures designed, inter alia , to protect children and young persons against negligence and violence (Article 17). 51.     In its practice, the European Committee of Social Rights has held the following (decision of the European Committee of Social Rights in Association for the Protection of All Children (APPROACH) Ltd. v. Belgium (merits), complaint no. 98/2013, 20 January 2015): “50.     In this regard, the Committee recalls its interpretation of Article 17 of the Charter as regards the corporal punishment of children laid down most recently in its decision in World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Portugal, Complaint No.   34/2006, decision on the merits of 5 December 2006, §§   19-21: ‘19.     To comply with Article 17, states’ domestic law must prohibit and penalize all forms of violence against children that is acts or behaviour likely to affect the physical integrity, dignity, development or psychological well-being of children. 20.     The relevant provisions must be sufficiently clear, binding and precise, so as to preclude the courts from refusing to apply them to violence against children. 21.     Moreover, states must act with due diligence to ensure that such violence is eliminated in practice.’ ... 54.     Further as regards the case law cited by the Government, the Committee notes the Government has not provided any examples of case-law by superior courts showing that the above-mentioned provisions of the Civil Code have been interpreted as prohibiting all forms of violence against children by parents and ‘other persons’, including for educational purposes.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 52.     The applicant complained of harassment by a teacher in a State school and of failure by the domestic authorities to respond effectively to his allegations of harassment. He relied on Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. 53.     The Court finds, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, §   243, 25 June 2020), that the applicant’s complaints fall to be examined under Article 8. While the complaints of harassment at school may fall to be examined under Article 3 (see, for instance, V.K. v. Russia , no. 68059/13, §§ 171-72, 7 March 2017), the Court notes that the applicant’s allegations of harassment concern verbal abuse by R.V. consisting of three instances in which he uttered insults aimed directly or indirectly at the applicant, all of which occurred within several days of each other. In such circumstances, having regard to its case-law (see, for instance, R.B. v.   Hungary , no.   64602/12, §§ 44-52, 12 April 2016), the Court considers it more appropriate to examine the case from the perspective of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention. 54.     The relevant parts of Article 8 read as follows: “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.” Admissibility Applicability of Article 8 of the Convention 55.     The Government contended that the teacher’s conduct had not brought about any adverse effects on the applicant’s private life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. 56.     While it is not clear whether the Government sought to challenge the applicability of Article 8, this being a matter that goes to the Court’s jurisdiction and which it must establish of its own motion (see, for instance, Jeanty v. Belgium , no. 82284/17, § 58, 31 March 2020), it finds it important to note the following. 57.     The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity (see Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 95, 25 September 2018; see also Remetin v. Croatia , no. 29525/10, § 90, 11 December 2012), and extends to other values such as well-being and dignity, personality development and relations with other human beings (see N.Š. v. Croatia , no. 36908/13, § 95, 10 September 2020, with further references). 58.     In order for Article 8 to come into play, however, an attack on a person must attain a certain level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for one’s private life (see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania , no. 41288/15, § 109 in fine , 14 January 2020). However, in cases relating, inter alia , to Article 8 the Court has stressed the relevance of the age of the minors concerned and the need, where their physical and moral welfare is threatened, for children and other vulnerable members of society to benefit from State protection. The need to take account of the vulnerability of minors has also been affirmed at international level (see Wetjen and Others v. Germany , nos.   68125/14 and 72204/14, § 74, 22 March 2018, with further references). 59.     Measures taken in the field of education may, in certain circumstances, affect the right to respect for private life, but not every act or measure which may be said to affect adversely the moral integrity of a person necessarily gives rise to such an interference (see Costello-Roberts v.   the United Kingdom , 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247 ‑ C). In Costello-Roberts , which concerned an instance of corporal punishment at school, the Court found that the treatment complained of by the applicant had not entailed adverse effects on the applicant’s physical or moral integrity sufficient to bring it within the scope of the prohibition contained in Article   8. However, since Costello-Roberts , there has been an evolution of social attitudes and legal standards concerning the application of measures of discipline towards children, emphasising the need for protection of children from any form of violence and abuse. This is reflected in various international instruments (see paragraphs 39-51 above) and the Court’s case-law (see, for instance, A, B and C v. Latvia , no. 30808/11, §   152, 31   March 2016; see also V.K. v. Russia , §§ 171-72, and Wetjen and Others , §§ 76-78, both cited above). 60.     In the case at issue, there is no doubt that the insults to which the applicant was subjected by R.V. caused him emotional distress, which affected his psychological well-being, dignity and moral integrity (see paragraph 9 above). Moreover, those insults were uttered in the classroom in front of other pupils and were thus capable of humiliating and belittling the applicant in the eyes of others. It should also be taken into account that the insults in question were particularly disrespectful towards the applicant and were perpetrated by a teacher in a position of authority and control over him. 61.     In these circumstances, and taking into consideration that it is in the best interests of the applicant as a child, his classmates and children in general to be effectively protected from any violence or abuse in educational settings (see paragraphs 58-59 above and 80-82 below), the Court finds that there can be no doubt that the treatment complained of by the applicant falls to be examined under the right to respect for private life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.   Exhaustion of domestic remedies and compliance with the six-month time-limit 62.     The Government argued that a constitutional complaint was not one of the remedies to be exhausted in respect of a decision rejecting the applicant’s criminal complaint. Thus, by waiting for the Constitutional Court to decide upon his constitutional complaint, the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging an application. In the Government’s view, instead of lodging a constitutional complaint, the applicant should have brought a private prosecution or have availed himself of the opportunity to take over the prosecution against R.V. as a subsidiary prosecutor. As he had taken neither of these steps, the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available. 63.     The applicant contended that he had instituted a number of proceedings before various domestic authorities concerning his harassment in school, but the relevant authorities had failed to address them properly. Accordingly, he had not been required to use any further remedies as suggested by the Government. The applicant also pointed out that, after the remedies used before the relevant authorities had proved to be ineffective, he had duly lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court and brought his application to the Court within a period of six months following the rejection of that complaint. 64.     In many previous cases against Croatia, the Court has already examined and dismissed similar objections on the part of the respondent Government concerning the use by applicants of the constitutional complaint procedure before the Constitutional Court prior to bringing their case to the Court (see Pavlović and Others v. Croatia , no. 13274/11, §§   32 ‑ 38, 2 April 2015; see also Bajić v. Croatia , no. 41108/10, §§ 68-69, 13 November 2012, and Remetin , cited above, §§ 83-84). It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case, where in his constitutional complaint the applicant complained of harassment at school and the inadequacy of the response of the relevant domestic authorities – including the school, the Ministry, the Agency and the State Attorney’s Office – to his allegations of harassment (see paragraph 27 above). 65.     With regard to the Government’s objection that the applicant should have pursued a subsidiary or private prosecution, the Court reiterates that once the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint concerning his alleged harassment, he could not be required to pursue a subsidiary or private prosecution (compare Škorjanec v. Croatia , no. 25536/14, § 46, 28 March 2017). In any event, it is not clear that a criminal prosecution would have been the most appropriate procedural avenue in the circumstances of the present case (see paragraph 93 below). 66.     In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Government’s objections. Significant disadvantage 67.     The Government argued that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage, given that his allegations of emotional abuse by R.V. concerned several isolated incidents which had not produced any long-lasting effects on either his emotional well-being or success at school. 68.     The applicant maintained his complaints. 69.     The Court has already found above that the treatment complained of by the applicant caused him emotional distress and affected his psychological well-being and his moral integrity, which fall within the protection of private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph   60 above). In such circumstances, given the context of the case, namely the allegations of harassment in a school at the hands of a teacher, where any form of violence, however slight, is considered unacceptable, the Court finds that there can be no room for application of the “no significant disadvantage” criterion (see paragraphs 81-82 and 91 below). The Government’s objection is therefore dismissed. Conclusion 70.     The Court notes that the applicant’s complaints that he sustained harassment at school on the part of a teacher, and that the domestic authorities failed to react effectively to his allegation of harassment, are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Whether the applicant’s complaint of alleged interference with his final mathematics examination is manifestly ill-founded 71.     The Government argued that the applicant’s complaints of adverse effects on his performance in the final examination and on his university enrolment were completely unsubstantiated and unfounded. They pointed out that the available material clearly indicated that the applicant’s poor performance in the examination had been the result of his failure to properly follow the instructions for filling in the examination papers. 72.     The applicant maintained that he had indeed completed his examination, but that a panel (of which R.V. had been a member) had failed to give him a mark for it. In his view, this could be explained by his poor relationship with R.V. 73.     The Court notes that the material available to it shows that the final mathematics examination which the applicant took was anonymised, and that his poor performance related to his failure to properly follow the instructions for filling in the examination papers (see paragraph 11 above). There is no indication that the applicant’s examination papers were tampered with. Accordingly, the Court finds that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and   4 of the Convention. Merits The parties’ arguments (a)    The applicant 74.     The applicant contended that he had been harassed by R.V. That conduct had been condoned by the relevant school authorities, and the State authorities had not provided an adequate response. In particular, the headteacher and the school psychologist had taken no effective measures to respond to R.V.’s verbal abuse. At a meeting on 14 December 2011 the headteacher had asked his father to drop all the allegations he had made, otherwise the applicant would not