CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 11 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38336/21 Atanasije RISTIĆ against Serbia lodged on 30 June 2021 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s arrest, alleged ill-treatment by the police and detention for a period of almost 90 hours, apparently in the absence of a formal detention order to this effect. Prior to his arrest, the applicant had swallowed a small plastic bag containing narcotics and was then taken to the police station and, subsequently, to a hospital where he was kept until those contents were produced following the administration of a laxative. In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court stated, inter alia , that the removal of drugs from the applicant’s stomach had been required on medical grounds since he would otherwise have risked death through poisoning. In his application lodged with the Court, the applicant refers to Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, as well as to Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 in particular. In so doing, he complains of: (a) being ill-treated while in the hospital, having been chained to the bed, deprived of any privacy while using the bathroom and forced to take a laxative; (b) not being informed of his rights upon arrest; (c)   his unlawful detention in general; (d) being denied an opportunity to contact a lawyer or his family during this time; (e) not being brought before a judge to decide about his detention at any point; and (f) having no legal avenue at his disposal in order to challenge the lawfulness of his detention while it lasted.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required under Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, despite making use of the constitutional appeal procedure and obtaining a decision or a partial decision on the merits from the Constitutional Court, were there any other, prior, effective remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and/or 5 of the Convention which should have been used (see, mutatis mutandis , Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no.   41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008; Vrenčev v. Serbia , no. 2361/05, § 44, 23   September 2008; Milošević v.   Serbia , no. 31320/05, §§ 46 and 47, 28 April 2009; and D.H. and Others v.   the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 117 and 118, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV)?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention while in the hospital (see, mutatis mutandis , Jalloh v.   Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 67-83, ECHR 2006 ‑ IX)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention? Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the alleged deprivation of liberty effected “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and did it fall within paragraph (c) of this provision? Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him, as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention? Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge or another officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?