TREĆE ODELJENjE

PREDMET STALOVIĆ protiv SRBIJE
(Predstavka broj 35786/22)

PRESUDA

STRAZBUR

utorak, 17. februar 2026. godine

Ova presuda je pravnosnažna, ali može biti predmet redakcijskih izmena.

U predmetu Stalović protiv Srbije,

Evropski sud za ljudska prava (Treće odeljenje), na zasedanju Odbora u sastavu:

Darian Pavli, predsednik,

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,

Mateja Đurović, sudije,

i Olga Chernishova, zamenica sekretara Odeljenja,

Imajući u vidu:

predstavku (broj 35786/22) protiv Republike Srbije podnetu Sudu na osnovu člana 34. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda (u daljem tekstu: „Konvencija”) 11. jula 2022. godine od strane gospodina Marka Stalovića, državljanina Srbije, i gospođe Sandre Stalović, državljanke Austrije (u daljem tekstu: „podnosioci”), rođenih 1992. godine i 1991. godine, tim redom, koji žive u Beogradu i Beču, a koje je zastupao gospodin D. Jovanović, direktor Evropskog centra za prava Roma, nevladine organizacije sa sedištem u Briselu, kome je odobreno da zastupa podnosioce pred Sudom (član 36. st. 2. i 4(a) Poslovnika Suda);

odluku da se o pritužbama u vezi sa navodnim zlostavljanjem podnosilaca od strane policije obavesti Vlada Srbije (u daljem tekstu: „Vlada”), koju zastupa njena zastupnica, gospođa Z. Jadrijević Mladar, i da se ostatak predstavke proglasi nedopuštenim;

Zapažanja strana u sporu;

odluku Vlade Republike Austrije da ne iskoristi svoje pravo da interveniše u postupku prema članu 36. stav 1. Konvencije;

Nakon većanja na zatvorenoj sednici održanoj 27. januara 2026. godine,

Donosi sledeću presudu, koja je usvojena tog dana:

OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

1. Predmet se tiče rasno motivisanog zlostavljanja od strane policije i nedostatka delotvorne istrage u tom pogledu.

2. Podnosioci su bračni par. Prvi podnosilac je romskog porekla. Dana 21. aprila 2017. godine, podnosioci su prijavili krađu automobila Policijskoj stanici Mladenovac (u daljem tekstu: „PS Mladenovac”), navodeći da su im pasoši ostali u automobilu. Oni su zatim podvrgnuti poligrafskom testiranju i „neformalnom” ispitivanju u Policijskoj upravi za Grad Beograd. O navedenim ispitivanjima nije sačinjen zapisnik. Prema navodima podnosilaca, oni su odvedeni u dve odvojene prostorije. Prvi podnosilac je tvrdio da je bio primoran da klekne i da je bio podvrgnut šamaranju, šutiranju u predelu stomaka i udaranju kožnim bičem po gornjoj strani obe šake. Dalje je tvrdio da je bio podvrgnut gušenju plastičnom kesom, da mu je prećeno da će biti upucan i podvrgnut elektrošokovima, da je vređan (spominjanje „majke ciganske”) i da mu je prećeno da će mu deca biti smeštena u dom. Druga podnositeljka je navela da joj je prećeno pritvorom, da je bila optužena da je „maska organizovane kriminalne grupe”, da je trpela rasističke uvrede („belkinja sa obojenim”, „prikrivena Šiptarka”) i da joj je prećeno da će joj oduzeti decu.

3. Podnosioci su vraćeni u PS Mladenovac gde su dali formalne izjave u vezi sa svojom pritužbom i potpisali zapisnik, prema kojem je ispitivanje završeno u 21.30 časova dana 21. aprila 2017. godine. U zapisniku potpisanom od strane podnosilaca se navodi da dotični nemaju primedbi, kao i da prvi podnosilac nema pritužbi u vezi sa postupanjem policijskih službenika u Mladenovcu i Beogradu.

4. Prvi podnosilac je podvrgnut lekarskom pregledu u Domu zdravlja Mladenovac u 22.35 časova. On je tvrdio da su ga policijski službenici pri Policijskoj upravi za Grad Beograd pretukli. U lekarskom izveštaju je navedeno da je njegov identitet potvrdio njegov otac jer nije posedovao lična dokumenta. Lekar je evidentirao nekoliko povreda u predelu glave, crvene mrlje u predelu levog bubrega i tragove pritiska na desnom kolenu, i sve prijavio policiji. Dodatnim pregledom, koji je obavljen narednog dana, otkrivene su višestruke povrede glave i bolovi u mišićima duž vrata i leđa. Dana 26. aprila 2017. godine, prvom podnosiocu je dijagnostikovan PTSP koji se pripisuje navodnom incidentu.

5. Dana 9. maja 2017. godine, podnosioci su podneli krivičnu prijavu protiv osam policijskih službenika, tvrdeći da su bili podvrgnuti zlostavljanju zbog romskog porekla prvog podnosioca. Prvo osnovno javno tužilaštvo u Beogradu naložilo je Odeljenju za kontrolu zakonitosti u radu policije (u daljem tekstu: „Odeljenje za kontrolu”) da prikupi relevantne informacije. Pet policijskih službenika umešanih u predmetni incident je saslušano do 31. avgusta 2017. godine, dok su podnosioci saslušani 8. decembra 2017. godine.

6. Policijski službenici su tvrdili da su podnosioci podvrgnuti neformalnom ispitivanju nakon poligrafskog postupka, ali da su negirali navode o zlostavljanju. Iz spisa predmeta je jasno da drugi policijski službenici, koji su bili prisutni tokom nekih delova ispitivanja, nisu bili saslušani. Prvi podnosilac je ponovio svoje pritužbe. Što se tiče činjenice da je potpisao zapisnik o ispitivanju, on je tvrdio da nije bio obavešten o tome šta je potpisivao. Druga podnositeljka je tvrdila da je bila podvrgnuta psihičkom zlostavljanju dok se nalazila u Policijskoj upravi za Grad Beograd. Nakon postavljenog pitanja, tvrdila je da nije dala izjavu u Policijskoj upravi za Grad Beograd, već samo u PS Mladenovac.

7. Dana 17. maja 2018. godine, Prvo osnovno javno tužilaštvo u Beogradu je odbacilo krivičnu prijavu, prihvativši izjave policijskih službenika i napomenuvši da je prvi podnosilac potpisao zapisnik bez ikakvih primedbi. Tužilac se takođe pozvao na snimak nadzorne kamere u okviru PS Mladenovac, sačinjen na dan incidenta, na kojem se vidi kako podnosioci napuštaju policijsku stanicu bez vidljivih povreda. Prvi lekarski izveštaj je zanemaren jer je bilo nemoguće utvrditi da se odnosio na prvog podnosioca, s obzirom na to da nije posedovao lična dokumenta. Drugi lekarski izveštaj je zanemaren jer je sačinjen dan nakon navodnog zlostavljanja, kao i fotografije povreda koje je napravio prvi podnosilac iz razloga što nisu imale vremensku oznaku. Pritužba druge podnositeljke o psihičkom zlostavljanju nije razmotrena. Dana 29. avgusta 2018. godine, Više javno tužilaštvo u Beogradu je potvrdilo tu odluku.

8. Dana 1. avgusta 2017. godine, dok je krivična istraga bila u toku, podnosioci su podneli tužbu zbog diskriminacije protiv države. Dana 1. juna 2020. godine, Viši sud u Beogradu je usvojio tužbu i dodelio prvom podnosiocu iznos od 4.700 evra (EUR) na ime nematerijalne štete zbog pretrpljene diskriminacije, fizičkog bola i straha, dok je drugoj podnositeljki dodelio iznos od EUR 1.700 zbog pretrpljene diskriminacije i straha. Utvrđeno je da su policijski službenici izvršili neopravdani fizički i psihički pritisak u odnosu na podnosioce, kako je opisano u stavu 2. gore, što predstavlja ponižavajuće postupanje. Pošto je šteta nastala nezakonitim postupanjem državnog organa, tužena je bila dužna da istu nadoknadi bez obzira na odbacivanje krivične prijave protiv pojedinih policijskih službenika. Takođe je utvrđeno da su podnosioci izneli verodostojnu tvrdnju da je postupanje policijskih službenika bilo motivisano, makar delimično, romskim poreklom prvog podnosioca i brakom druge podnositeljke sa njim, i da tužena nije uspela da tu tvrdnju opovrgne. Odluka je takođe bila zasnovana na dva stručna lekarska mišljenja u kojima se navodi da su podnosioci pretrpeli strah zbog takvog postupanja, i da je prvi podnosilac takođe pretrpeo fizičku bol. Dana 17. decembra 2020. godine, Apelacioni sud u Beogradu je potvrdio tu presudu, i ona je postala pravnosnažna. Podnosioci nisu osporili dosuđene iznose u žalbenom postupku.

9. Dana 28. oktobra 2021. godine, Ustavni sud je odbio ustavnu žalbu podnosilaca protiv odluka o odbacivanju njihove krivične prijave. Utvrđeno je da je istraga bila adekvatna, temeljna i brza. Ustavni sud je konstatovao da je Odeljenje za kontrolu hijerarhijski nadređeno policijskim službenicima koji su bili pod istragom, te da je stoga nezavisno. Na osnovu snimaka sa nadzornih kamera, utvrđeno je da su podnosioci napustili PS Mladenovac u 21.00 časova dana 21. aprila 2017. godine, da je prvog podnosioca lekar pregledao oko sat i po vremena kasnije i da nije bilo dokaza da njegove povrede nisu mogle nastati nakon napuštanja policijske stanice. Zaključeno je da njegovi navodi nisu potkrepljeni medicinskim dokazima, i da u početku nije imao pritužbi na postupanje policije (videti stav 3. gore). Pritužba druge podnositeljke je odbijena na osnovu njenog sopstvenog kazivanja da nije dala nikakvu izjavu u Policijskoj upravi za Grad Beograd dana 21. aprila 2017. godine (videti stav 6. gore). Kada je reč o navodima o zlostavljanju na osnovu romskog porekla, Ustavni sud je utvrdio da je zabrana diskriminacije supsidijarana, i da se ne može kršiti ukoliko prethodno nije povređeno neko drugo ustavno pravo.

OCENA SUDA

I. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANA 3. KONVENCIJE

10. Podnosioci su se prituživali na osnovu člana 3. da su bili podvrgnuti zlostavljanju. Takođe su se prituživali da vlasti nisu sprovele delotvornu istragu o njihovim navodima o zlostavljanju.

A. Dopuštenost

11. Vlada je podnela prigovor da podnosioci više ne mogu tvrditi da su žrtve u smislu člana 34. Konvencije, jer su parnični sudovi priznali i istima dodelili naknadu štete zbog kršenja člana 3. Konvencije (videti stav 8. gore).

12. U svetlu relevantnih načela koja se tiču gubitka statusa „žrtve” u slučajevima prema članu 3, a naročito da se u slučajevima namernog zlostavljanja kršenje te odredbe ne može otkloniti samo dosuđivanjem nadoknade štete žrtvi (videti Gäfgen protiv Nemačke [VV], broj 22978/05, st. 115–19, ESLJP 2010), ovaj prigovor treba spojiti sa osnovanošću predmeta jer je usko povezan sa suštinom pritužbi podnosilaca.

13. Sud dalje smatra da predmetne pritužbe nisu ni očigledno neosnovane niti nedopuštene po bilo kom drugom osnovu navedenom u članu 35. Konvencije. Prema tome, one se moraju proglasiti dopuštenim.

B. Osnovanost

14. U slučajevima poput predmetnog, teret dokazivanja je na Vladi da pruži zadovoljavajuće i ubedljivo objašnjenje za povrede koje su pretrpela lica pod policijskom kontrolom (videti Bouyid protiv Belgije [VV], broj 23380/09, st. 83–84, ESLJP 2015). Procesne obaveze prema članu 3. navedene su u predmetima S.M. protiv Hrvatske ([VV], broj 60561/14, st. 311–19, od 25. juna 2020. godine), i Bouyid (citiran gore, st. 114–23.).

15. Domaći parnični sudovi su utvrdili da su podnosioci bili zlostavljani kako je navedeno u njihovoj predstavci (videti stav 8 gore). Vlada je tvrdila da su se ovi nalazi zasnivali isključivo na iskazu podnosilaca. Međutim, domaći sudovi su uzeli u obzir rešenja o odbacivanju krivične prijave podnosilaca, kao i dva stručna lekarska mišljenja koja povezuju zlostavljanje sa bolom i strahom koje su podnosioci pretrpeli. Sud takođe konstatuje da je osporavanje tih nalaza suprotno tvrdnji da su podnosioci prestali da uživaju status žrtve jer su ti isti sudovi priznali kršenje njihovih prava i dodelili im obeštećenje (videti stav 11. gore).

16. Ne postoje dokazi koji bi potkrepili pretpostavku Ustavnog suda da je prvi podnosilac zadobio povrede nakon što je napustio policijsku stanicu, kao pretpostavku koja je u suprotnosti sa standardom dokazivanja primenjenim u uporedivim slučajevima prema članu 3. (videti Bouyid, citiran gore, stav 83.). Štaviše, ova hipoteza nije primenjena u odlukama kojima se odbacuje krivična prijava podnosilaca. Svestan da su te odluke takođe zasnovane na snimcima sa nadzornih kamera (videti stav 7. gore), Sud konstatuje da oni nisu deo spisa predmeta koji mu je dostavljen. Sud stoga daje veću težinu medicinskoj dokumentaciji.

17. Kada je reč o drugoj podnositeljki, očigledno je (i nesporno između strana u sporu) da je druga podnositeljka bila podvrgnuta ispitivanju u Policijskoj upravi za Grad Beograd (videti st. 2. i 6. gore). To ispitivanje je bilo „neformalno”, bez zapisnika i bez zaštitnih mera protiv zlostavljanja, što potkopava kredibilitet tvrdnje da nije bilo zlostavljanja.

18. U pogledu pritužlbe na nedostatak delotvorne istrage, nadležni organi nisu blagovremeno reagovali nakon što su obavešteni o povredama prvog podnosioca i njegovim navodima (videti stav 4. gore). Oni su odlagali preduzimanje bilo kakvih koraka dok podnosioci nisu podneli krivičnu prijavu. Trebalo im je skoro osam meseci da saslušaju podnosioce i preko četiri meseca da ispitaju petoro policijskih službenika (videti stav 5. gore).

19. Istraga je delegirana policijskim službenicima koji su bili hijerarhijski nadređeni onima koji su bili umešani u događaje koji su predmet istrage (videti Bouyid, citiran gore, st. 118. i 9. gore), te stoga nije bila nezavisna.

20. Istrazi je takođe nedostajala temeljnost. Nadležni organi nisu saslušali sve policijske službenike prisutne tokom ispitivanja podnosilaca, kao ni oca prvog podnosioca, koji ih je video ubrzo nakon što su napustili PS Mladenovac. Oni su odbacili medicinsku dokumentaciju koja se odnosi na prvog podnosioca uprkos činjenici da je njegov otac bio prisutan tokom lekarskog pregleda obavljenog 21. aprila 2017. godine i da je potvrdio njegov identitet, što je bilo nesporno. Stoga, odluka da se ona zanemari zbog toga što podnosilac nije posedovao lični dokument koji potvrđuje njegov identitet deluje neosnovano, posebno imajući u vidu činjenicu da je ranije tog dana prijavio krađu pasoša (videti stav 2. gore).

21. Odluka o odbacivanju krivične prijave podnosilaca takođe je zasnovana na snimku sa nadzornih kamera, koji je pokazao dotične kako napuštaju PS Mladenovac bez vidljivih povreda, kao i na izjavi prvog podnosioca da nema pritužbi na postupanje policijskih službenika. Kada je reč o snimcima sa nadzornih kamera, konstatovano je da je prvi podnosilac zadobio lakše povrede koje možda nisu nužno bile vidljive na takvim snimcima, i da su podnosioci napustili policijsku stanicu noću. Što se tiče druge podnositeljke, njeno navodno psihičko zlostavljanje ne bi ostavilo nikakve vidljive tragove, a štaviše, organi gonjenja nisu ni ispitivali te navode.

22. Kada je reč o prvobitnoj izjavi prvog podnosioca da nema pritužbi na ponašanje policijskih službenika, on je istu kasnije povukao (videti stav 3. gore).

23. U ovim okolnostima, imajući u vidu raspoložive medicinske dokaze, pozivaanje vlasti na navedenu izjavu i snimak sa sigurnosnih kamera radi odbacivanja krivične prijave se čini neopravdanim. Sud prihvata da ukupno trajanje krivične istrage nije bilo prekomerno i da su vlasti uspele da identifikuju petoro umešanih policijskih službenika. Međutim, to nije bilo dovoljno da ispune svoju obavezu prema članu 3. Konvencije da sprovedu delotvornu istragu.

24. U svetlu gorenavedenog, Sud zaključuje da su podnosioci zadržali svoj status žrtve jer vlasti nisu sprovele delotvornu istragu koja bi mogla dovesti do identifikacije i kažnjavanja odgovornih, i odbacuje prigovor Vlade po tom pitanju.

25. Sud takođe smatra da Vlada nije ponudila zadovoljavajuće i ubedljivo alternativno objašnjenje za povrede prvog podnosioca. Ova činjenica, nalazi domaćih parničnih sudova (videti stav 8 gore) i nedostaci istrage (za razliku od slučaja Stevan Petrović protiv Srbije, br. 6097/16 i 28999/19, stav 123, od 20. aprila 2021. godine) naveli su Sud da takođe prihvati kao dokazane tvrdnje druge podnositeljke o zlostavljanju.

26. Prema tome, došlo je do kršenja člana 3. Konvencije u njegovom materijalnom i procesnom delu.

II. NAVODNO KRŠENjE ČLANA 14. U VEZI SA ČLANOM 3. KONVENCIJE

27. Podnosioci su se dalje prituživali da su zlostavljanje i naknadni nedostaci u okviru istrage i postupka po ustavnoj žalbi bili rezultat institucionalnog rasizma unutar srpskih organa vlasti, zbog romske etničke pripadnosti prvog podnosioca i braka druge podnositeljke sa njim. Oni su se oslanjali na čl. 3. i 14. Konvencije.

A. Dopuštenost

28. Uzimajući u obzir svoje nalaze u vezi sa statusom žrtve podnosilaca prema članu 3. Konvencije (videti stav 24. gore), i svoje nalaze da su podnosioci bili izloženi namernom zlostavljanju od strane policije (videti stav 25. gore), Sud utvrđuje da podnosioci zadržavaju svoj status žrtve u pogledu svojih pritužbi na diskriminaciju.

29. Ove pritužbe takođe nisu očigledno neosnovane u smislu člana 35. stav 3(a) Konvencije niti nedopuštene po bilo kom drugom osnovu. Prema tome, one se moraju proglasiti dopuštenim.

B. Osnovanost

1. Materijalni aspekt

30. Relevantna načela su navedena u predmetu Nachova i dr. protiv Bugarske ([VV], br. 43577/98 i 43579/98, stav 157, ESLJP 2005-VII) i Aghdgomelashvili i Japaridze protiv Gruzije (br. 7224/11, st. 43–44, od 8. oktobra 2020. godine).

31. Sud primećuje da su parnični sudovi već utvrdili da su diskriminatorni stavovi bili uzročni faktor u zlostavljanju podnosilaca (videti stav 8. gore). Vlada nije osporila spornu tvrdnju da su podnosioci bili zlostavljani zbog romske etničke pripadnosti prvog podnosioca (videti Lapunov protiv Rusije, broj 28834/19, st. 106. i 119, od 12. septembra 2023. godine).

32. Shodno tome, Sud nalazi da je došlo do kršenja člana 14. Konvencije u vezi sa članom 3. u njegovom materijalnom delu.

2. Procesni aspekt

33. Obaveza prema čl. 3. i 14. Konvencije da se istraži moguća uzročna veza između navodnih rasističkih stavova i zlostavljanja koje su podnosioci predstavke pretrpeli od strane policije dobro je utvrđena u praksi Suda (videti, mutatis mutandis, Nachova i dr., citiran gore, stav 160, i Sabalić protiv Hrvatske, broj 50231/13, st. 93–98, od 14. januara 2021. godine).

34. Iz spisa predmeta je jasno da vlasti nisu sprovele istragu povodom te tvrdnje. Štaviše, Vlada je to potvrdila u svojim zapažanjima.

35. U svetlu gorenavedenog, došlo je do kršenja člana 14. Konvencije u vezi sa članom 3. u njegovom procesnom delu.

III. PREOSTALE PRITUŽBE

36. Pozivajući se na član 1. Protokola br. 12. uz Konvenciju, podnosioci su ponovili svoje pritužbe koje su već razmotrene u skladu sa čl. 3. i 14. Konvencije (videti st. 30–35. gore). Ove pritužbe su dopuštene; međutim, Sud nalazi da nema potrebe za njihovim zasebnim ispitivanjem (videti Aghdgomelashvili i Japaridze, citiran gore, stav 52.).

37. Kada je reč o pritužbama podnosilaca prema članu 14. i članu 1. Protokola broj 12. uz Konvenciju u vezi sa navodnim institucionalnim rasizmom unutar srpskih organa vlasti, Sud, imajući u vidu činjenice slučaja, zapažanja strana u sporu i svoje nalaze prema članu 14, a u vezi sa članom 3. Konvencije, smatra da nema potrebe da se ova pritužba zasebno ispituje (videti Centar za pravne resurse u ime Valentin Câmpeanua protiv Rumunije [VV], broj 47848/08, stav 156, ESLJP 2014).

PRIMENA ČLANA 41. KONVENCIJE

38. Prvi podnosilac je tražio iznos od 25.000 evra (EUR), dok je druga podnositeljka tražila iznos od EUR 10.000, na ime nematerijalne štete. Podnosioci su takođe tražili iznos od EUR 13.595 na ime troškova i izdataka nastalih pred domaćim sudovima i pred Sudom.

39. Vlada je osporila ove zahteve.

40. Uzimajući u obzir iznose koje su domaći sudovi već dosudili podnosiocima u okviru parničnog postupka (videti stav 8. gore), kao i prirodu i težinu povreda utvrđenih u predmetnom slučaju, Sud dosuđuje podnosiocima iznos od EUR 3.750 po podnosiocu, zajedno sa bilo kakvim porezima koji mogu biti obračunati, na ime nematerijalne štete.

41. Sud odbacuje zahtev podnosilaca u vezi sa troškovima i izdacima jer dotični nisu potkrepili svoj zahtev dokazima da su takve troškove i izdatke zaista platili, ili da su imali zakonsku obavezu da plate tražene naknade (videti Merabishvili protiv Gruzije [VV], broj 72508/13, st. 370–73, od 28. novembra 2017. godine).

IZ TIH RAZLOGA, SUD, JEDNOGLASNO,

1. Proglašava predstavku dopuštenom;

2. Utvrđuje da je došlo do povrede člana 3. Konvencije u njegovom procesnom i materijalnom delu;

3. Utvrđuje da je došlo do povrede člana 14. u vezi sa članom 3. Konvencije u njegovom materijalnom i procesnom delu;

4. Utvrđuje da nema potrebe da se zasebno ispitaju preostale pritužbe;

5. Utvrđuje

(a) da Tužena treba da isplati podnosiocima, u roku od tri meseca, sledeće iznose, kao i bilo koji porez koji može biti obračunat, na ime nematerijalne štete;

(i) EUR 3.750 (tri hiljade sedam stotina pedeset evra) prvom podnosiocu, koji će biti konvertovan u valutu Tužene države po kursu važećem na dan isplate;

(ii) EUR 3.750 (tri hiljade sedam stotina pedeset evra) drugoj podnositeljki;

(b) da, po isteku gore navedena tri meseca do isplate, treba isplatiti običnu kamatu na gore navedene iznose po stopi koja je jednaka najnižoj kamatnoj stopi Evropske centrale banke uz dodatak od tri procentna poena;

6. Odbacuje preostali deo zahteva podnosilaca za pravičnim zadovoljenjem.

Sastavljeno na engleskom jeziku i dostavljeno u pisanoj formi dana 17. februara 2026. godine, u skladu sa pravilom 77. st. 2. i 3. Poslovnika Suda.

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF STALOVIĆ v. SERBIA
(Application no. 35786/22)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 February 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Stalović v. Serbia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,

Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 35786/22) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 11 July 2022 by Mr Marko Stalović, a Serbian national, and Ms Sandra Stalović, an Austrian national (“the applicants”), who were born in 1992 and 1991 respectively, live in Belgrade and Vienna and were represented by Mr D. Jovanović, the director of the European Roma Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Brussels, who was granted leave to represent the applicants before the Court (Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a)) of the Rules of Court);

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning alleged ill-treatment by police to the Serbian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

the decision of the Austrian Government not to exercise their right to intervene in the proceedings, under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention;

Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns racially motivated police ill-treatment and the lack of an effective investigation in that respect.

2. The applicants are a married couple. The first applicant is of Roma origin. On 21 April 2017 they reported a car theft to the Mladenovac Police Station (hereafter “Mladenovac Station”) stating that their passports had been left inside the car. They were then subjected to a polygraph test and “informal” questioning at the Belgrade Police Directorate. No minutes of those interviews were made. According to the applicants, they were taken to two separate rooms. The first applicant alleged being forced to kneel, slapped, kicked in the stomach, and struck with a leather whip on the upper side of his hands. He further claimed that he had been suffocated with a plastic bag, threatened with shooting and electrocution, insulted (“Gypsy mother”), and warned his children would be placed in care. The second applicant alleged threats of detention, accusations of being “the mask of an organised criminal group,” racist insults (“white woman with a black man”, “Shqiptar in disguise”), and threats to take her children.

3. The applicants were returned to Mladenovac Station where they gave formal statements concerning their complaint and signed the minutes, according to which the interviews ended at 9.30 p.m. on 21 April 2017. They were signed by the applicants and state that they had no remarks, and that the first applicant had no complaints concerning treatment by police officers in Mladenovac and Belgrade.

4. The first applicant underwent medical examination at the Mladenovac Health Centre at 10.35 p.m. He claimed that he had been beaten by police officers at Belgrade Police Directorate. The medical report stated that his identity had been confirmed by his father because he had no identity documents. The doctor documented several head injuries, red spots near the left kidney region and a pressure mark on his right knee and reported everything to the police. Another examination the next day revealed multiple head injuries and muscle pain along the neck and back. On 26 April 2017 the first applicant was diagnosed with PTSD attributed to the alleged incident.

5. On 9 May 2017 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against eight police officers and claimed that they had been ill-treated because of the first applicant’s Roma origin. The First Public Prosecutor’s Office of First Instance in Belgrade instructed the Department for the Control of Lawfulness of the Police (hereafter “the Control Department”) to gather information. Five police officers involved in the incident were questioned by 31 August 2017, while the applicants were heard on 8 December 2017.

6. The police officers claimed that the applicants had been informally questioned after the polygraph procedure, but denied allegations of ill-treatment. It is clear from the case file that other police officers who had been present during some parts of the questioning were not interviewed. The first applicant reiterated his complaints. As for the fact that he had signed the minutes of his questioning he claimed that he had not been informed about what he had been signing. The second applicant claimed that she had been subjected to psychological ill-treatment while at the Belgrade Police Directorate. Following a question, she claimed that she had not given a statement at the Belgrade Police Directorate, but only at the Mladenovac Station.

7. On 17 May 2018 the Prosecutor’s Office of first-instance rejected the criminal complaint, accepting the police officers’ statements and noting that the first applicant had signed the minutes without making any complaints. The prosecutor also referred to CCTV footage from the Mladenovac Station, made on the day of the incident, showing the applicants leaving the station without any visible injuries. The first medical report was disregarded as it was impossible to determine that it had concerned the first applicant because he had no identification documents. The second medical report was disregarded because it was made the day after the alleged ill-treatment and the photographs of injuries made by the first applicant because they were not dated. The second applicant’s complaint of psychological ill-treatment was not addressed. On 29 August 2018, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Second Instance in Belgrade upheld the decision.

8. On 1 August 2017, while the criminal investigation was pending, the applicants lodged a discrimination claim against the State. On 1 June 2020 the Belgrade Court of Second Instance allowed the claim and awarded the first applicant 4,700 euros (‘EUR’) in non-pecuniary damages because of the suffered discrimination, physical pain and fear, and the second applicant EUR 1,700 because of the suffered discrimination and fear. It was established that police officers applied unjustified physical and psychological pressure, as described in paragraph 2 above, amounting to degrading treatment. As the damage was caused by unlawful conduct of a state organ, the defendant was obliged to compensate it regardless of the rejection of the criminal complaint against individual police officers. It was also held that the applicants had made a credible claim that the conduct of the police officers was motivated, at least in part, by the first applicant’s Roma origin and the second applicant’s marriage to him and that the defendant failed to disprove it. The decision was also based on two expert medical opinions stating that the applicants suffered fear because of that conduct, and that the first applicant also suffered physical pain. On 17 December 2020, the Belgrade Court of Appeal upheld that judgment and it became final. The applicants did not challenge the amounts awarded on appeal.

9. On 28 October 2021, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal against the decisions to reject their criminal complaint. It found that the investigation had been adequate, thorough, and prompt. It noted that the Control Department was hierarchically superior to the officers under investigation and thus independent. Based on CCTV footage, it found that the applicants had left the Mladenovac Station at 9 p.m. on 21 April 2017, that the first applicant had been examined by a doctor about 1.5 hours later, and that there had been no evidence his injuries could not have occurred after leaving the station. It concluded that his allegations were unsupported by medical evidence and that he initially had no complaints about police treatment (see paragraph 3 above). The second applicant’s appeal was dismissed on the basis of her own statement that she had not given any statement at the Belgrade Police Directorate on 21 April 2017 (see paragraph 6 above). Regarding the allegation of ill-treatment based on Roma origin, it held that the prohibition of discrimination is accessory and cannot be breached unless another constitutional right has first been violated.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

10. The applicants complained under Article 3 that they had been subjected to ill-treatment. They also complained that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment.

A. Admissibility

11. The Government objected that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention because the civil courts have acknowledged and afforded redress for the breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 8 above).

12. In light of the relevant principles concerning the loss of “victim” status in Article 3 cases, notably that in cases of wilful ill-treatment the breach of that provision cannot be remedied solely by an award of compensation to the victim (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 115-19, ECHR 2010), this objection should be joined to the merits as it is closely linked to the substance of the applicant’s complaints.

13. The Court further considers that these complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

14. In cases like the present one, the burden of proof is on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for injuries suffered by persons under police control (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 83-84, ECHR 2015). The procedural obligations under Article 3 are set out in S.M. v. Croatia ([GC], no. 60561/14, §§ 311-19, 25 June 2020), and Bouyid (cited above, §§ 114-23).

15. The domestic civil courts found that the applicants had been ill-treated as alleged in their application (see paragraph 8 above). The Government argued these findings had relied solely on the applicants’ account. However, the domestic courts took into account the decisions to reject the applicants’ criminal complaint, as well as two expert medical opinions linking the ill-treatment to pain and fear suffered by the applicants. The Court also notes that challenging those findings is contradictory with the contention that the applicants ceased to have victim status because those same courts acknowledged breaches of their rights and awarded them compensation (see paragraph 11 above).

16. There is no evidence to support the Constitutional Court’s assumption that the first applicant sustained injuries after leaving the police station, an assumption that is inconsistent with the standard of proof applied in comparable Article 3 cases (see Bouyid, cited above, § 83). Furthermore, this hypothesis was absent from the decisions rejecting the applicants’ criminal complaint. Being aware that those decisions were also based on CCTV footage (see paragraph 7 above), the Court notes that it is not part of the case file before it. The Court therefore gives greater weight to the medical documentation.

17. Regarding the second applicant, it is apparent (and undisputed between the parties) that the second applicant had been questioned at the Belgrade Police Department (see paragraphs 2 and 6 above). That questioning was “informal”, unrecorded, and lacking safeguards against ill-treatment, undermining the credibility of the narrative that there had been no ill-treatment.

18. Turning to the complaint of lack of effective investigation, the authorities failed to act promptly after being informed of the first applicant’s injuries and his allegations (see paragraph 4 above). They delayed taking any steps until the applicants lodged a criminal complaint. They took nearly eight months to hear the applicants and over four months to question five officers (see paragraph 5 above).

19. The investigation was delegated to police officers hierarchically superior to those implicated in the events under investigation (see Bouyid, cited above, § 118 and paragraph 9 above), and thus not independent.

20. The investigation also lacked thoroughness. The authorities failed to question all police officers present during the applicants’ questioning, as well as the first applicant’s father, who saw them shortly after leaving the Mladenovac Station. They dismissed the medical documentation relating to the first applicant despite the fact that his father was present during the medical examination on 21 April 2017 and confirmed his identity, and this was undisputed. Thus, the decision to disregard it because the applicant did not have an identification document appears unfounded, especially in view of the fact that he had reported his passport stolen earlier that day (see paragraph 2 above).

21. The decision to reject the applicants’ criminal complaint was also based on the CCTV footage, which showed them leaving the Mladenovac Station without any visible injuries, and on the first applicant’s statement that he had no complaints regarding the conduct of the police officer. As regards the CCTV footage, it is noted that the first applicant sustained light injuries which might not necessarily have been visible on such footage, and that the applicants left police station at night. As regards the second applicant, her allegations of psychological ill-treatment would not leave any visible marks, and, moreover, her allegations were not examined by the prosecutorial authorities.

22. As regards the first applicant’s initial statement that he had no complaints about the conduct of the police officers, he subsequently retracted it (see paragraph 3 above).

23. In these circumstances, having regard to the available medical evidence, the authorities’ reliance on that statement and the CCTV footage to reject the criminal complaint appears unjustified. The Court accepts that the overall length of the criminal investigation was not excessive and that the authorities managed to identify five implicated police officers. However, that was not enough to fulfil their obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation.

24. In light of the above, the Court concludes that the applicants have retained their victim status because the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and dismisses the Government’s objection on that point.

25. The Court also considers that the Government failed to offer a satisfactory and convincing alternative explanation for the first applicant’s injuries. This fact, the findings of the domestic civil courts’ (see paragraph 8 above) and the shortcomings of the investigation (contrast with Stevan Petrović v. Serbia, nos. 6097/16 and 28999/19, § 123, 20 April 2021) lead the Court to also accept the second applicant’s claims of ill-treatment as proven.

26. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in both its substantive and procedural limb.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14
IN CONJUCTION WITH ARTICLE 3
OF THE CONVENTION

27. The applicants complained, further, that the ill-treatment, and the subsequent shortcomings in the investigation and constitutional proceedings, had been a result of institutional racism within the Serbian authorities, because of the first applicant’s Roma ethnicity and the second applicant’s marriage to him. They relied on Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention.

A. Admissibility

28. Having regard to its findings concerning the applicants’ victim status under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 24 above), and its findings that the applicants have been subjected to wilful ill-treatment by the police (see paragraph 25 above), the Court finds that the applicants retain their victim status in respect of their discrimination complaints.

29. Those complaints are also not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible or any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Substantive aspect

30. The relevant principles are set out in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 157, ECHR 2005-VII) and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia (no. 7224/11, §§ 43-44, 8 October 2020).

31. The Court observes that the civil courts have already established that discriminatory attitudes were a causal factor in the applicants’ ill-treatment (see paragraph 8 above). The Government did not disprove an arguable allegation that the applicants had been ill-treated because of the first applicant’s Roma ethnicity (see Lapunov v. Russia, no. 28834/19, §§ 106 and 119, 12 September 2023).

32. Accordingly, the court finds that has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 in its substantive limb.

2. Procedural aspect

33. The obligation under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention to investigate a possible causal link between alleged racist attitudes and the abuse suffered by the applicants at the hands of the police is well-established in the Court’s case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others, cited above, § 160, and Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, §§ 93-98, 14 January 2021).

34. It is clear from the case file that the authorities did not investigate that claim. Furthermore, the Government confirmed so in their observations.

35. In light of the above, there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 in its procedural limb.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

36. Citing Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicants reiterated their grievances already examined under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention (see paragraphs 30-35 above). These complaints are admissible, however, there is no need for their separate examination (see Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze, cited above, § 52).

37. As regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention concerning alleged institutional racism within the Serbian authorities, the Court, having regard to the facts of the case, the parties’ submissions and its findings under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

38. The first applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) and the second applicant EUR 10,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants jointly claimed EUR 13,595 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.

39. The Government contested these claims.

40. Taking into account the amounts already awarded by the domestic courts in civil proceedings (see paragraph 8 above) and the nature and gravity of the violations found in the present case, the Court awards the applicants EUR 3,750 each, plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

41. The Court rejects the applicants’ claim regarding costs and expenses because they did not support their claim that they had paid or were under a legal obligation to pay the fees claimed (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 370-73, 28 November 2017).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural and substantive limbs;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural and substantive limbs;

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints;

5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage:

(i) EUR 3,750 (three thousand seven hundred and fifty euros) to the first applicant, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(ii) EUR 3,750 (three thousand seven hundred and fifty euros) to the second applicant;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.