CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 2024

.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 } Published on 29 April 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42160/21 Robert PAVLOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 5 August 2021 communicated on 8 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Serbian national of Roma origin. On 21 July 2016, when he was nine years old, the applicant alleges that he was verbally and physically assaulted (slapped in the face) by an employee of a local city administration while playing the accordion in the city square in front of the city hall. The police filed a misdemeanour complaint against the alleged perpetrator for committing violence and a criminal complaint for offences of violent behaviour and endangering the safety of others. The relevant public prosecutor rejected the criminal complaint for violent behaviour. Instead the alleged perpetrator was ordered to pay approximately 250 euros in Serbian dinars into a flood relief fund in accordance with Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows a public prosecutor to reject prosecution of certain offences when the alleged perpetrator agrees to pay a certain amount of money for humanitarian purposes. The same public prosecutor also rejected the criminal complaint for endangering the safety of others, finding no grounds to proceed against the alleged perpetrator. Following the rejection of the criminal complaint by the public prosecutor, the relevant misdemeanour court suspended the misdemeanour proceedings against the alleged perpetrator. On 29 December 2020 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 64 of the Serbian Constitution which prohibits psychological, physical, economic and any other form of exploitation or abuse of children. The Constitutional Court held that the prosecuting authorities had failed to take into account that the applicant had been a child at the time when they opted to reject the criminal complaint filed by the police. Lastly, the Constitutional Court awarded 300 euros to the applicant as just satisfaction for the violation established. The applicant complains that he was verbally assaulted and slapped in the face by a state agent of the respondent State because of his Roma origin. He claims to have been a victim of inhuman and degrading treatment. He further complains about the lack of an effective official investigation into the alleged racist incident and that he did not have the right to appeal the decision of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaint. Finally, he complains that he was discriminated against by the respondent State authorities due to his Roma ethnicity. He relies on Articles 3, 13, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   12 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 100-113, ECHR 2015)? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? 3.     As regards the incident of 21   July 2016 and the ensuing investigation, has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention Rights on the ground of his Roma origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction Article 3, and/or Article   1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention (see Stoica v. Romania , no.   42722/02, §§   119-133, 4   March 2008)? 4.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3, due to the applicant’s lack of right to appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaints filed by the police?