5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Podgorica. 6.  On 29 or 30 January 2013 the applicant telephoned the police and reported X for threatening him. 7.  On 1 February 2013 X entered a coffee-bar owned by the applicant and asked him to come outside. Once outside, X started punching the applicant. Some passers-by separated X from the applicant, after which X left the scene saying “I will bring a knife and a hammer to kill you”. Shortly afterwards, X returned to the bar with a kitchen hammer and started hitting the applicant on his head and all over his body, saying “I will kill you”. One of the waiters and some of the customers separated X from the applicant and took the applicant for emergency treatment. The doctor in charge of the emergency ward noted that the applicant had suffered a head injury measuring 4 cm by 1 cm inflicted by a hammer. 8.  The same day the applicant lodged a criminal complaint in written form against X, after which X was arrested. On 6 February 2013 X was charged with violent behaviour. In the processing of the indictment it transpired that there was another indictment pending against X, issued on 30 October 2012, in which he had been charged with stabbing V.J. and inflicting light bodily injuries on him. The proceedings on those two indictments were joined into a single set of proceedings. 9.  On 30 May 2013 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica found X guilty of inflicting light bodily injuries on V.J. on 9 October 2012, and of violent behaviour against the applicant on 1 February 2013. The court ordered the mandatory psychiatric treatment of X in a hospital (mjera bezbjednosti obavezno psihijatrijsko liječenje i čuvanje u zdravstvenoj ustanovi), and the confiscation of two knives and a kitchen hammer. 10.  During the proceedings it transpired that X had been a long-term psychiatric patient, suffering from schizophrenia, and that he had been treated several times in a special psychiatric hospital. It also transpired that on several occasions he had attacked some of his neighbours, had set his flat on fire, and had caused a flood in the next-door flat. In the course of the proceedings X’s aunt submitted that about three months before attacking the applicant, X had become more aggressive and that she had reduced contact with him to a minimum. The court also established that X had stabbed V.J. without any reason. It transpires from the case file that after that attack, X had been arrested and then released, but there is no information as to the exact dates. 11.  The court found that there was a direct causal link between X’s mental state and the criminal offences he had committed, that there was a serious danger that he might commit a more serious offence (neko teže djelo), and that he required psychiatric treatment in order to prevent that from happening. 12.  That judgment became final on 20 June 2013. On 24 June 2013 the Court of First Instance requested the prison authorities to transfer X to a special hospital in Kotor. On 16 November 2015 the Court of First Instance discontinued (obustavio) the enforcement of mandatory inpatient psychiatric treatment and replaced it with mandatory psychiatric treatment on an outpatient basis, as long as there was a need for treatment but no longer than three years. On 12 April 2016 the Court of First Instance issued an order (nalog) directing X to undergo outpatient psychiatric treatment in a healthcare centre (Dom zdravlja). He was readmitted to hospital between 22 August and 21 October 2016, apparently at his own request. Between 18 April 2016 and October 2017 X had regular monthly check-ups by a specialist. 13.  On 27 May 2013 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State, seeking 1,700 euros (EUR) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He submitted, in substance, that X had already attacked other people before attacking him, including V.J. four months earlier. Moreover, the applicant had reported X to the police for threatening him before the attack. Owing to the failure of the State to undertake any preventive measure in respect of X, the applicant had been attacked by him and had suffered injuries. 14.  In the course of the proceedings, on 20 December 2013 the court heard Z.Ɖ., a police officer, who had been patrolling for more than ten years in the neighbourhood where X lived and where the applicant’s bar was located. He stated that two to three days prior to the attack, the applicant had called the police to report X who had been “causing him problems” (stvarao mu problem) and who had told the applicant that he “would see who the boss in the neighbourhood was”. Following that complaint, Z.Ɖ. had looked for X in order to talk to him but had been unable to find him for the next two days. After the applicant had been attacked, Z.Ɖ. had gone to the scene and, “knowing that X always carried a knife or some other cold weapon”, asked him whether he had a knife. In response, X had taken a knife from behind his back and handed it in. Z.Ɖ. further submitted that the police often received complaints of noise, disturbances (neredi) and attacks by X. The police would always have “an informative talk” (informativni razgovor) with X, and would duly notify the State prosecutor (Osnovni državni tužilac) thereof. He did not know, however, whether those complaints had been further processed. 15.  On 19 February 2015 the Court of First Instance ruled against the applicant. The court held that the police had acted as required, notably by taking X’s statements and forwarding them to the competent prosecutor for further processing. In addition, after the attack X had been criminally prosecuted and found guilty. Therefore, there had been no lack of action and thus the State was not liable for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. Relying on section 148(1) of the Obligations Act, the court held as follows:
“The court dismisses as factually and legally unfounded the applicant’s submissions that the State ought to have hospitalised X before the event here in issue, as the State bodies did order his hospitalisation as soon as the conditions for that had been met. The fact that it was only after the case at issue does not affect the court’s conclusion. The court has concluded that the State bodies acted in accordance with the law and their powers both pursuant to this event and other preceding events, and therefore the conditions for an award of compensation have not been met.” 16.  On 20 April 2015 the High Court upheld the first-instance judgment. It considered, in substance, that there was no causal link between the State’s actions and the damage caused, given that the applicant’s injury was a result of an attack by a third person. Therefore there was no liability on the part of the State to compensate him for the said damage. The court stated that it had examined other submissions but found that they did not influence its verdict. 17.  On 12 June 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. In substance he maintained that: (a) the State had failed to react appropriately after X had attacked V.J.; (b) four months thereafter, X had attacked and injured the applicant; and (c) three days before the attack the applicant had complained to the police that X had threatened him. The State was thus responsible, as it had had knowledge of the kind of person X was, but had failed to react. The applicant relied on Article 28 of the Constitution (see paragraph 22 below), and on the Court’s findings in the case of Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia in respect of Article 2 of the Convention. 18.  On 14 October 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected (odbacuje se) the applicant’s constitutional appeal, holding, in particular:
“[the applicant] complains of a violation of his rights in substance by challenging the established facts.
The Constitutional Court reiterates that it is not competent to substitute the regular courts in assessing the facts and evidence, but that it is the task of the regular courts to [do so] (see the European Court’s judgment in the case of Thomas v. the United Kingdom, 10 May 2005, no. 19354/02). The task of the Constitutional Court is to examine whether the proceedings as a whole were fair within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention and whether the decisions of the regular courts violate constitutional rights. Therefore, the Constitutional Court is not competent to replace the assessment of the regular courts by its own assessment, as it is up to those courts to assess the evidence and establish the facts relevant for the outcome of the proceedings. Therefore, the constitutional appeal here at issue is manifestly (prima facie) unfounded.”
That decision was served on the applicant on 13 January 2016 at the earliest. 19.  On 10 June 2003 X was found guilty of a serious traffic offence and was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years. On 28 June 2006 he was found guilty of setting his flat on fire and was ordered to undergo mandatory outpatient psychiatric treatment. 20.  Before 24 June 2013 (see paragraph 12 above) X had been hospitalised on several other occasions: (a) for an unspecified period in 1997; (b) from 29 November to 19 December 2001; (c) from 25 July 2003 to 8 July 2004 (following a court decision of 21 July 2003 to that effect, after he had set his flat on fire; once it was considered that he had achieved a stable clinical condition, X was discharged from the hospital); (d) from 31 January to 21 February 2006; (e) from 23 July to 29 September 2006; (f) on 15 February and 13 March 2007 (on the recommendation of the healthcare centre in Podgorica following complaints from X’s neighbours); (g) from 5 June to 25 July 2008; and (h) from 24 September 2012 to 3 October 2012. That period of hospitalisation would appear to have been prompted by an attempt by X to commit suicide by taking a large quantity of medication. The discharge note of 3 October 2012, however, noted that X “[did] not want to remain in hospital in spite of the persistent insistence of the doctor in charge (ordinarijus) that he continue hospital treatment. He [was] prescribed a check-up in seven days’ time with a competent psychiatrist in a health care centre”. There is no information as to whether X had any treatment or a medical check-up thereafter. It is clear from the case file that between the periods of hospitalisation in 2008 and 2012, X had seen a psychiatrist on at least three occasions: on 1 November 2010, 22 September and 11 October 2011. Two of the three medical reports state that X had regularly been taking medication. 21.  On 13 December 2013 X was deprived of his legal capacity following a proposal to that effect by the local social work centre of 14 November 2013. On an unspecified date thereafter, the social work centre was appointed his legal guardian.