[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zlatko PREZEC v Croatia - 7508/05 [2008] ECHR 874 (28 August 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/874.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 874

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7508/05
by Zlatko PREZEC
against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 August 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 February 2005,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zlatko PreZec, is a Croatian national who was born in 1972 and is at present serving a prison term in Gospić Prison. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. StaZnik.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Following a criminal conviction for murder, the applicant was sent to serve his sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment in Lepoglava State Prison on 15 December 1997. While imprisoned several criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant in connection with threats against prison employees and a number of disciplinary measures were taken.

On 20 May 2004 the VaraZdin County Court investigation judge (istraZni sudac Zupanijskog suda u VaraZdinu) ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant. The examination was carried out by the Vrapče Psychiatric Hospital (Psihijatrijska bolnica Vrapče) from 23 to 29 June 2004.

The conclusions of the report drawn up on 6 July 2004 read:

“1. Zlatko PreZec is a person suffering from serious and permanent personality disorder with prevalence of paranoia [paranoid personality disorder], schizophrenic disorder and a pronounced narcissistic pathology, as well as a strong tendency towards destructive and self-destructive behaviour.

2. The patient’s mental disorders do not fall into the category of a temporary or permanent mental illness, insufficient mental development or a mental illness with physical causes.

3. During psychiatric examination no elements indicating alcohol dependency or dependency on some psychoactive substance were found.

4. Bearing in mind the gravity and nature of the patient’s personality disorders and their close link with the offences with which he has been charged, we consider that his ability to understand and control his own actions was diminished when the offences in question were committed.

5. Bearing in mind the serious and genuine risk [that the patient] might commit further criminal offences, we recommend that he undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment.

6. The patient maintains the capacity to participate in the proceedings against him for the time being.”

On 13 July 2004 the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli) found the applicant guilty of threatening an employee of Pula Prison and sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment. With regard to the applicant’s mental state, the judgment stated:

“... the defendant ... is a person suffering from serious and permanent [chronic] personality disorders with prevalence of paranoia [paranoid personality disorder], schizophrenic disorder and a pronounced narcissistic pathology, as well as a strong tendency towards destructive and self-destructive behaviour.”

For that reason the court ordered that the applicant should undergo a compulsory psychiatric treatment.

In January 2008 a psychiatric examination of the applicant was carried out in connection with the interim measures ordered by the Court pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The report drawn up on 15 January 2008 concluded that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder and was in need of an active, permanent and differential psychiatric treatment.

In March 2008 the applicant was placed in the Psychiatric Ward of the Zagreb Prison Hospital where an individual programme for him was designed. The programme includes compulsory psychiatric treatment of the applicant in the Zagreb Prison Hospital, consisting of intensive psychiatric treatment in small groups and therapeutic communities, organised art and computer workshops as part of the applicant’s therapy and his preparation for the return to the normal life. The treatment is to last until the applicant’s release.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained about the lack of requisite psychiatric treatment for his mental illness, ordered by a court judgment.

He further complained that although he had attempted suicide on numerous occasions no adequate measures for the protection of his life were put in place.

He finally complained that certain disciplinary measures violated his rights under the Convention.

THE LAW

On 26 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I note that the Government of Croatia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 5,000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

On 23 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Croatia offer to pay ex gratia 5,000 euros to Mr Zlatko PreZec with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the fact that since March 2008 the applicant has been receiving treatment specially designed for him. It furthermore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President