CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mai 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54009/21 Nikola BAJČETIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 26 October 2021 communicated on 22 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s ill-treatment by unidentified members of the Special Police Unit on 17 October 2015 and a lack of an effective investigation in that regard. In 2018 and 2020 the civil courts found a violation of substantive and procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, respectively, and awarded the applicant certain compensation. On 30 September 2020 the Constitutional Court, following the applicant’s constitutional appeal, found a violation of both substantive and procedural limb of Article 3, and ordered that an investigation, which would ensure the identification and criminal prosecution of the perpetrators, be conducted within three months. On 31 March 2021 the Constitutional Court issued a decision declaring that its judgment (of 30   September 2020) had not been enforced. This decision was served on the applicant on 26 April 2021 at earliest. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention (both substantive and procedural aspect). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-82 and 86-90, ECHR 2015; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 93 and 119, ECHR 2010; and Milić and Nikezić v.   Montenegro , nos. 54999/10 and 10609/11, § 82, 28   April 2015)? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Cestaro v. Italy , no. 6884/11, §§ 216-217, 7 April 2015, and Baranin and Vukčević v.   Montenegro , nos.   24655/18 and   24656/18, §§ 141-149, 11 March 2021; see also El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 182-185, ECHR   2012, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and   2   others, §§ 316-325, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?