CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } Communicated on 11 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 52415/18 Nebojša ASANOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 23 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention. The applicant, who is a lawyer and a representative of an opposition media outlet, has been served summons by the police in front of the court of first instance and immediately taken to the police station, without having been told the reasons therefor. He was shortly thereafter arrested on the basis of “an official record” ( službena zabilješka ), without a possibility to file any kind of an appeal. After having been interviewed by a prosecutor he was released. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal considering that the police had acted lawfully. The Ombudsman found a violation of the applicant’s rights, considering that the police had acted unlawfully. The Council for Civic Control of Police also held that the police had acted unlawfully and unprofessionally, and that the applicant’s civil rights had been breached. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were a compensation claim ( tužba za naknadu štete ) and a complaint to a competent state prosecutor or a higher police instance ( pritužba nadležnom državnom tužiocu ili neposredno višem organu policije ) effective remedies within the meaning of this provision ?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was his deprivation of liberty ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? The Government are also invited to inform the Court if the applicant has been handcuffed at any point.   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?