Logo law and pluralism
Logo Università Bicocca

Relevant case law

A collection, sorted by years, of the most important judicial decisions concerning pluralism.

J.I. v. Croatia, No 35898/16, ECtHR (First Section), 8 September 2022

J.I. v. Croatia, No 35898/16, ECtHR (First Section), 8 September 2022

In the case J.I. v. Croatia, the applicant, a Croatian citizen of Roma origin, turned to the European Court of Human Rights complaining of a violation of Article 3 ECHR in view of the failure of the Croatian authorities to protect her from death threats by her father, who had previously been convicted of rape against her. This was also in light of the failure to effectively investigate her allegations about the threats. The applicant also claimed that she had suffered discriminatory treatment in breach of Article 14 ECHR, since she believed that the negligent and dismissive behavior by Croatian authorities was due to her ethnic origin.

 

The Court first analyzed the nature of the threats the applicant received. In this regard, it pointed out that ill-treatment must reach a minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article 3 ECHR. When assessing whether this minimum level is met, several factors must be considered, including the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects, as well as the sex of the victim and the relationship between the victim and the author of the treatment. Thus, in the present case, the Court found that the death threats made against the applicant by her father amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR; this was in view of the state of anxiety and feelings of powerlessness that the threats engendered in the applicant, which were also to be attributed to the physical suffering and psychological trauma related to the sexual violence she had suffered.

 

Having recalled that the prohibition of ill-treatment under Article 3 ECHR covers all forms of domestic violence, including death threats, the Court emphasized that any complaint about such acts implies an obligation for state authorities to carry out effective investigations. However, in the present case, the judges found that effective investigations had not been conducted. The lack of response on the part of the Croatian authorities is deemed particularly serious by the Court in view of the fact that the applicant had contacted the police on three separate occasions. Moreover, the European judges pointed out that Croatian law does not prescribe any specific form for complaints of criminal offenses and that, in any case, serious threats by a family member should have been prosecuted ex officio under domestic law.

 

With regard to the alleged discrimination suffered by the applicant, the Court found no evidence to support this allegation. However, it noted that the applicant’s ethnic origin exacerbated her particularly vulnerable condition, which should have resulted in the authorities’ prompt and effective response to her complaints.

 

Considering the above, the protection offered by the Croatian authorities to the applicant in the face of the threats she received is found to be inadequate by the Court, resulting in a violation of Article 3 ECHR in its procedural dimension.

 

(Comment by Chiara Chisari)