Background
When he was nine, Robert Pavlović, a Roma boy, was playing accordion in a Valjevo square with his sister when an adult man allegedly threatened him and then slapped him. Medical records documented a superficial head injury and emotional distress; later examinations recorded sleep problems and fear. Police identified the alleged assailant, N.I., a municipal lawyer, and submitted the case to prosecutors.
The prosecutor deferred prosecution for violent behaviour on condition that N.I. pay RSD 30,000, about EUR 250, to a State flood-relief fund. N.I. denied responsibility and refused to apologise to, or compensate, the child. After he made the payment, the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings in a final decision that the applicant could not challenge. Serbia’s Constitutional Court later found that this use of the opportunity principle had violated the child’s right to protection from abuse and awarded EUR 300. Civil courts separately awarded the applicant EUR 850 in non-pecuniary damages, but rejected discrimination allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Serbia violated Article 8. The assault on a vulnerable nine-year-old had sufficiently affected his physical and psychological integrity to engage the State’s positive obligation to provide adequate protection. The Court did not treat the alleged assailant’s conduct as attributable to the State merely because he was a municipal employee, as there was no evidence he acted in an official capacity.
Although police acted promptly and Serbian law provided criminal-law mechanisms, their implementation was defective. The prosecutor discontinued the case in exchange for a payment to a public cause, without requiring an apology, reparation, or other measure addressing the child victim’s needs. The decision gave no explanation for bypassing available measures to repair harm, was unappealable by the victim, and disregarded the child’s vulnerability and best interests. The domestic compensation did not remove victim status: it was not sufficient redress for the deficient criminal-law response. The Court awarded EUR 3,400 for non-pecuniary damage and found no need to examine Article 13 separately.
Key Takeaways
- Article 8 can require an effective criminal-law response to an assault affecting a child’s physical and psychological integrity.
- When deferring prosecution involving a child victim, authorities must give primary consideration to the child’s best interests and explain their chosen conditions.
- An acknowledgment of wrongdoing and modest domestic compensation may not provide sufficient redress for a defective criminal-law response.
Why It Matters
The judgment limits the use of prosecutorial diversion where it leaves a child victim without accountability, apology, or reparation. A payment to a public fund may not adequately protect the victim’s Article 8 interests, particularly where the alleged offender denies responsibility.
The Court rejected the applicant’s discrimination complaint as manifestly ill-founded, finding no prima facie case that the assault or investigation was racially motivated. The Article 8 violation therefore rests on the inadequate protection afforded to a vulnerable child, not on a finding of anti-Roma discrimination.