CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juillet 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 143 July 2011 Đurđević v. Croatia - 52442/09 Judgment 19.7.2011 [Section I] Article 3 Positive obligations Violence among pupils in school: inadmissible   Article 8 Positive obligations Violence among pupils in school: inadmissible   Facts – In their application to the European Court, the applicants (parents and son) complained that the third applicant, who was of Roma origin, had been subjected to violence by other pupils from the secondary school he attended. Following an incident in October 2008 in which he sustained an injury to his nose he was interviewed by the police, but said that the injury was the result of an accident. Medical reports were drawn up following further incidents in which the third applicant claimed to have been beaten up both in and outside school and in February 2010 he was diagnosed with serious eye impairment as a result of a contusion. The applicants also complained of a separate incident in June 2009 in which they alleged that both the third applicant and his mother (the second applicant) had sustained injuries at the hands of the police. The mother lodged a criminal complaint, but this was rejected by the State Attorney’s Office for lack of evidence. Law – Articles 3 and 8 (alleged violence in school): The States’ duty to provide individuals within their jurisdiction, in particular children and other vulnerable persons, effective protection against ill-treatment included an obligation to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by others. The third applicant, who was fifteen years old when the events in question took place, clearly fell into the category of “vulnerable individuals” entitled to State protection. In support of his allegations that he had been frequently ill-treated by other pupils at the school he attended, he had submitted a series of medical reports documenting his accounts of beatings, abdominal and back pain, headaches and permanent eye damage. However, both in their submissions to the national authorities and to the Court, the applicants’ complaints had been formulated only in vague and general terms, without indicating the exact dates or circumstances. Indeed, the only specific incident they had referred to – which had been examined by the school authorities and noted in one of the medical reports – had turned out to be an accident. The medical reports had either noted no injuries or, in the case of the permanent eye damage, not indicated the cause of the injury or whether it was connected with a specific incident of violence at school. Though aware of the seriousness of the problem of violence in schools, the Court could not see how the applicants’ vague and unspecified allegations could have set off the State’s positive obligations under Articles   3 or Article   8. For such an obligation to be triggered, allegations of violence had to be specific and more detailed as to the time, place and nature of the acts complained of. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). As regards the incident in June 2009 the Court found that there had been no violation of the substantive aspect of Article   3 as it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the second and third applicants’ injuries had been caused by the police. There had, however, been a violation of the procedural aspect of that provision owing to the failure to conduct an effective investigation. The second and third applicants were therefore awarded EUR 6,000, jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes