CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 mars 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s2A13E303 { color:#2e97d3 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   174 5.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT JANKOVIĆ v. CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Janković v. Croatia (application no. 38478/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the failure by the authorities to adequately protect Ms Janković from an attack on her physical integrity and of the manner in which the national criminal-law mechanisms had been implemented; a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Ms   Janković 3,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,820 (less EUR   850 already received in legal aid from the Council of Europe) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Sandra Janković, is a Croatian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Split (Croatia). In October1996, she rented a room in a flat shared with other tenants. In August 1999, she found the lock of that apartment changed and her belongings removed from the flat. She complained before the civil court which ruled in her favour in May 2002 ordering that she regain occupation of her room in the apartment. The court’s decision was implemented about ten months later on the basis of an enforcement order.   Ms Janković’s access to the apartment, however however , only lasted one day. The day after the court’s decision was implemented, she was   assaulted by two women and a man   assaulted by two women and a man , and thrown out of the flat. The attackers were initially found guilty of insulting Ms Janković and sentenced to pay a fine in minor-offence proceedings brought against them by the police; however, those proceedings were ultimately terminated as the offences with which they were charged became time-barred while Ms Janković appealed unsuccessfully.   In the meantime, Ms Janković asked the court to resume the enforcement proceedings in order for her to regain access to her room in the flat. Her request was dismissed on 8 January 2008 as inadmissible.   In October 2003, Ms Janković brought a criminal complaint against seven individuals, alleging that she was physically attacked, abused and threatened by them, including with being killed. The authorities decided not to open an official investigation into the matter as they found that the acts complained of represented an offence for which prosecution had to be brought privately by the victim. Ms Janković brought her private complaint, which was ignored and her request for investigation was dismissed by the domestic courts as inadmissible. She complained to the Constitutional Court of the excessive length of these criminal proceedings; her complaint is still pending.   Ms Janković complained, to the Constitutional Court in 2002 and to the general jurisdiction court in 2007, of the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings she had brought. While the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint, the general jurisdiction court ruled – in March 2008 - in her favour awarding her 5,000 Croatian kunas (approximately EUR 678) in compensation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 September 2005 and declared partly admissible on 24   January 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Janković complained that, despite her attempts to have her allegations of being attacked and threatened by her flatmates investigated, the authorities failed to ensure her adequate protection. She also complained under Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of the civil and enforcement proceedings taken together which she had brought.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court first took note of the allegations of Ms Janković that three individuals had shouted obscenities at her in front of her apartment, that one of them had kicked her several times, pulled her by her clothes and hair and thrown her down the stairs, as well as the medical documentation showing that she had sustained blows to her elbow and tailbone. The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the attack occurred in connection with the Ms Janković’s attempt to enter a flat in respect of which she had obtained a court decision allowing her to occupy it.   The Court then observed that the relevant State authorities had decided not to prosecute the alleged attackers and had not allowed Ms Janković’s attempts to prosecute privately. In addition, the minor-offences proceedings had been terminated as time-barred without any final decision on the attackers’ guilt. The Court concluded that the national authorities had not provides adequate protection to Ms Janković against an attack on her physical integrity and that the manner in which the criminal-law mechanisms had been implemented constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the civil and enforcement proceedings had to be regarded as a whole because the enforcement of the court decision in Ms Janković’s favour constituted an integral part of her trial. Both sets of proceedings having lasted in total eight years, five months and six days, the Court held that this had been an excessively long period, in violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention.   Article 3   In view of its finding under Article   8, the Court considered that no separate issue remained to be examined under Article   3.     Judge Spielmann expressed a concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.