Analiza slučaja pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava
Evropska Konvencija o ljudskim pravima
Praktični vodič za primenu Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima
Priručnici i vodiči kroz praksu Evropskog suda za ljudska prava
Evropski sud za ljudska prava u 50 pitanja
Preuzmite presudu u pdf formatu
ЕВРОПСКИ СУД ЗА ЉУДСКА ПРАВА
ТРЕЋЕ ОДЕЉЕЊЕ
ПРЕДМЕТ СТАЈКОВИЋ против СРБИЈЕ
(Представка број 56944/17)
ПРЕСУДА
СТРАЗБУР
27. јануар 2026. године
Ова пресуда је правноснажна, али може бити предмет редакцијских измена.
У предмету Стајковић против Србије,
Европски суд за људска права (Треће одељење), на заседању Oдбора у саставу:
Darian Pavli, председник,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Матеја Ђуровић, судије,
и Olga Chernishova, заменица секретара Одељења,
Имајући у виду:
представку (број 56944/17) против Републике Србије, коју је Суду по члану 34. Конвенције за заштиту људских права и основних слобода (у даљем тексту: Конвенција) 31. јула 2017. године поднео држављанин Србије, господин Владимир Стајковић (у даљем тексту: подносилац), рођен 1975. године, с пребивалиштем у Београду, којег пред Судом заступа госпођа З. Добричанин-Никодиновић, адвокат из Београда;
одлуку да се о представци обавести Влада Републике Србије (у даљем тексту: Влада), коју заступа њихова заступница, госпођа З. Јадријевић Младар; запажања странака;
Након већања на затвореној седници 16. децембра 2025. године, Доноси следећу пресуду, која је усвојена тог дана:
ПРЕДМЕТ СЛУЧАЈА
ОЦЕНА СУДА
НАВОДНА ПОВРЕДА ЧЛАНА 5. СТАВ 5. КОНВЕНЦИЈЕ
A. Допуштеност
Б. Основаност
ПРИМЕНА ЧЛАНА 41. КОНВЕНЦИЈЕ
ИЗ ОВИХ РАЗЛОГА, СУД, ЈЕДНОГЛАСНО,
Састављено на енглеском језику и прослеђено у писаном облику 27. јануара 2026. године, у складу с правилом 77. ст. 2. и 3. Пословника о раду Суда.
|
Olga Chernishova |
Darian Pavli |
|
Заменица Секретара |
Председник |
____________
превод пресуде преузет са сајта Заступника Републике Србије пред ЕСЉП
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STAJKOVIĆ v. SERBIA
(Application no. 56944/17)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 January 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Stajković 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. 56944/17) 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 31 July 2017 by a Serbian national, Mr Vladimir Stajković (“the applicant”), who was born in 1975 and lives in Belgrade, and was represented by Ms Z. Dobričanin-Nikodinović, a lawyer practising in Belgrade;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Serbian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar,
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention about the decision of the Constitutional Court not to award him compensation for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 3.
2. On 10 March 2016 the applicant was detained on suspicion of committing extortion. The detention was repeatedly extended on grounds of the risk of the applicant’s reoffending. The detention lasted 11 months.
3. On 20 April 2017 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s rights on account of the length of his pre-trial detention. It reasoned that the competent courts had failed to act with “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicant and had not given relevant and sufficient grounds to justify his continued detention. The Constitutional Court ordered the publishing of its decision, considering it sufficient just satisfaction and awarding no financial compensation to the applicant, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had requested such an award.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 5 OF THE CONVENTION
4. Relying on Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to award him the compensation to which he had been entitled as a result of the established violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
5. The Government objected to the admissibility of the application on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. In particular, the Government argued that, apart from seeking compensation before the Constitutional Court, the applicant could have also lodged a claim for non-pecuniary damages and submitted a request for compensation to the Ministry of Justice.
6. The Court reiterates that where domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective (see Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).
7. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that, in addition to applying to the Constitutional Court, the applicant could have obtained compensation either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or by bringing a civil action. Unlike in Radonjić and Romić, where the Court examined only the remedy provided under Article 584 § 1 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, applicable to situations in which an unlawfully detained person is subsequently acquitted (see Radonjić and Romić v. Serbia, no. 43674/16, § 51, 4 April 2023), the Government in the present case referred to item 4 of the same Article in its alternative formulation. Under that provision, the applicant could have sought compensation when the deprivation of liberty was prolonged due to an error or unlawful conduct by the authority conducting the proceedings, which corresponds to the circumstances of this case. The Court further notes that a civil claim for compensation, conducted in accordance with the general rules of tort law, was also available to the applicant as an additional avenue for obtaining redress. However, the Court observes that the applicant made use of one of the available remedies by lodging a constitutional appeal. The Constitutional Court is also required to determine a complainant’s claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, where such a claim has been submitted. Therefore, the applicant was not obliged to pursue any additional legal remedies.
8. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
9. The Government submitted that the Constitutional Court had held that the finding of a violation had constituted sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case, as the detention had caused no harm warranting compensation. This conclusion had further been explained by the Constitutional Court’s finding that the case had concerned a misinterpretation of the legal norm rather than an actual violation of the law, which was why no monetary compensation had been awarded.
10. Taking into the recent judgment of Radonjić and Romić (cited above, § 49) which emphasises that compensation for non-pecuniary damage must be awarded in situations of this nature, the fact that the Constitutional Court chose not to award any compensation leads the Court to conclude that the mere acknowledgment of the alleged breach does not in itself constitute sufficient redress for that violation. Compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in an adequate amount would be required to that end (ibid., § 48). Thus, the applicant’s enforceable right to compensation, as guaranteed under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, was violated.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President
Sud se u obrazloženju svoje odluke u ovom slučaju pozvao na svoju presudu Radonjić i Romić protiv Srbije, gde je naveo da se nematerijalna šteta mora dosuditi u predmetima ove vrste, a imajući u vidu činjenicu da u konkretnom slučaju Ustavni sud podnosiocu nije dosudio nikakvu nadoknadu za utvrđenu povredu prava, Sud je zaklјučio da utvrđivanje povrede prava, samo po sebi, ne predstavlјa adekvatnu nadoknadu, već da je bilo neophodno utvrditi naknadu nematerijalne štete u odgovarajućem novčanom iznosu.
LINK na PRESUDU / ODLUKU
baza unakrsnih veza