Stalović protiv Srbije

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

1. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

2. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

 Olga Chernishova                    Darian Pavli
 Deputy Registrar                      President