CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27821/16 Zdravko MILIĆEVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 11 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the State to undertake measures to protect the applicant from an act of violence of another individual, X. The police knew that X was dangerous and that he had threatened the applicant. The applicant was subsequently attacked by X and suffered light bodily injuries. He filed a compensation claim against the State but the domestic courts dismissed it considering that there was no responsibility of the State. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, given the fact that X was known to the authorities as dangerous and that he had threatened the applicant, did they comply with their positive obligation to take all necessary steps to protect him, as required by Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia , no. 46598/06, §§ 49-61, 15   January 2009, and the authorities cited therein)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, having regard to the States’ positive obligation under Article 8 to provide procedural protection from ill-treatment even when inflicted by private persons (see, mutatis mutandis , Isaković Vidović v. Serbia , no. 41694/07, §§ 58-60, 1 July 2014, and Sandra Janković v. Croatia , no. 38478/05, §§ 44-46, and the authorities cited therein)?