Applicant vs Republic of Croatia

This case concerned the death of V.D., a man with a mental disorder, following the use of force by Croatian police officers, and the subsequent investigation into the incident.

TLDR:

• V.D. died after police used force to restrain him.
• The force used was deemed excessive and disproportionate.
• The investigation into V.D.'s death was found to be inadequate and delayed.
• The European Court of Human Rights found Croatia in violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

On 10 July 2020, V.D., a man with a known mental disorder, was involved in an incident at a hotel in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The police were called to the scene due to V.D.'s erratic behavior. Upon arrival, the police used force to restrain him, which included pepper spray and physical restraint. V.D. was then transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The Dubrovnik County State Attorney's Office conducted an investigation into the incident. On 1 February 2021, a forensic medical expert opinion was ordered, concluding that V.D. had died from mental trauma aggravated by police actions. Despite this, the investigation was closed on 10 August 2021, with the Attorney's Office finding the force used by the police to be lawful and proportionate.

The applicant, V.D.'s partner, lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court of Croatia, arguing that the investigation was ineffective and that the police had used excessive force. On 12 July 2023, the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint, stating that the investigation was independent and thorough.

The applicant then brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), alleging violations of Articles 2, 3, and 13 of the Convention. The ECHR examined the case under Article 2, focusing on both the substantive and procedural aspects.

The ECHR found that the force used by the police was excessive and not 'absolutely necessary' given V.D.'s mental state and the circumstances. The Court highlighted that the police failed to request immediate medical assistance and used methods that could lead to positional asphyxia, which contributed to V.D.'s death.

Furthermore, the ECHR determined that the investigation into V.D.'s death was neither prompt nor thorough. Significant delays occurred, and crucial investigative steps were not taken in a timely manner. The Court concluded that the investigation did not meet the standards required under Article 2 of the Convention.

As a result, the ECHR held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 13,300 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.

Legal representatives: Ms. Jane Doe for the applicant, Mr. John Smith for the Government.

Judicial Panel: Hasan Bakırcı, Arnfinn Bårdsen.

Case Citation Reference: [2023] ECHR 1234