CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 8 February 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9286/16 Nada ŽAGAR against Croatia lodged on 9 February 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Nada Žagar, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Poreč. She is represented before the Court by Ms   A.   Zaharija, a lawyer practising in Rovinj. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant lives in a flat in Poreč with her family. At the relevant time, a certain H.V. also lived in the flat as the applicant’s tenant. On 9 March 2008 the police carried out a violent entry and search of the applicant’s flat in the context of an investigation into an attempted murder by H.V. The police stormed into the applicant’s flat causing damage to the installations. On the same occasion, the applicant suffered fear and distress. On 10 March 2008 the applicant was examined in the emergency and the duty doctor found that she had suffered psychological distress as a result of the actions taken by the police. On 6 July 2010 the applicant instituted the civil proceedings against the State in the Poreč Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Poreču ) seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with the actions of the police. In the course of the proceedings, the applicant gave evidence at the hearing before the Poreč Municipal Court explaining that she had been first contacted by a police officer by phone who asked whether H.V. lived in her flat. She had answered that he did but that he was not at home. Soon after that she had seen boots climbing up to her flat and after that she had heard noise and things breaking in the flat. She had thus locked herself in the bathroom and called the police and her husband. Her husband had informed her that it was probably the police as they had prevented him from going into the flat. The record of the applicant’s questioning indicates that she was in distress and cried while giving evidence. The Poreč Municipal Court also commissioned an expert report concerning the applicant’s mental condition. In his report the expert reported that he had conducted an interview with the applicant and that she had explained how she had thought that there was an armed “mafia” confrontation happening in her flat as she had read in the newspapers that such things happened in the city. The expert found that the applicant had developed acute stress reaction related to the violent entry into her flat. On 18 March 2013 the Poreč Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, awarding her 13,359 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 1,770   euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and HRK 12,000 (approximately EUR 1,590) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It held that the conduct of the police had been excessive and unjustified and that, as a result, the applicant had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The relevant State Attorney’s Office representing the State appealed against this judgment to the Pula County Court ( Županijski sud u Puli ). On 13 July 2015 the Pula County Court upheld the judgment concerning the pecuniary damage and dismissed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage. It held that the applicant had suffered distressed because she had considered that there was an armed confrontation happening in her flat and not because she had thought that the police were conducting a violent entry and search. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) relying, inter alia , on the right to respect for her home under Article 34 of the Constitution. On 26 November 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded, upholding the finding of the Pula County Court. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 11 December 2015. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the alleged unjustified violent entry and search of her home. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant have victim status concerning her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home related to the search of her house, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.