CONSEIL
DE L’EUROPE
COUNCIL
OF EUROPE
COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7508/05
by Zlatko PREŽEC
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:
2
PREŽEC v. CROATIA (NO. 1) DECISION
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zlatko Prežec, 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.
Stažnik.
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 Varaždin County Court investigation judge (istražni
sudac Županijskog suda u Varaždinu) 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 Prežec 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.”
PREŽEC v. CROATIA (NO. 1) DECISION
3
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.
4
PREŽEC v. CROATIA (NO. 1) DECISION
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 Prežec 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
Registrar
Christos Rozakis
President