5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Zagreb. 6.  In 2004 the applicant occupied a flat in Zagreb situated in a decayed building in the wider city centre of Zagreb. 7.  In 2005, in the context of the denationalisation process, a certain V.W-M. became the owner of the building. 8.  Soon afterwards the area in which the building was located attracted the interest of real-estate investors, and many residential and commercial buildings were built there. V.W-M. took certain measures with a view to selling her property. 9.  In the early hours of 22 December 2005 the applicant informed the police that a bullet had been shot into her flat. The police immediately responded at the scene and found that a bullet had entered the applicant’s flat though a window. The scene was secured and the applicant spent the night with a friend. 10.  A further onsite inspection was carried out by the police, but the bullet was not found. The applicant was interviewed about the circumstances of the shooting but she could not provide any further details, as she had been sleeping at the time when the bullet had entered the flat. 11.  On 18 January 2006 the police lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu – hereinafter “the State Attorney’s Office”) against an unknown perpetrator in relation to charges of endangering life and property through dangerous acts or means (shooting). 12.  There is no information to indicate that any further investigative steps have been taken. The perpetrator remains unknown. 13.  On 10 November 2010 the applicant called the police to report that she had recently heard noise from the neighbouring building, where nobody was supposed to be living. She feared that something suspicious was happening. The police carried out an inspection of the scene but only found in the vicinity a homeless person, who argued that he had never been in the building in question. 14.  On 22 November 2010 the applicant and her neighbour, T.O., reported to the police that a certain M.B. had often visited the applicant’s building, explaining that he represented an investor. He had offered to the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) to leave her flat. After she had refused that offer, he had threatened to move into her flat when she was absent. 15.  In connection with the applicant’s allegations, on 21 December 2010 the police interviewed M.B. He explained that he had been interested in buying the building containing the applicant’s flat, and that for that reason he had entered into negotiations with the tenants. However, he denied threatening or otherwise harassing them. M.B. also explained that he had abandoned the idea of buying the building as it would have entailed many legal disputes with the tenants. 16.  On 22 December 2010 a fire broke out in the building where the applicant lived. The police attended at the scene and found that the fire had started in the premises of an abandoned retail store. The police recorded that there was no threat to people or particular damage to property. The fire was extinguished and no further action taken. 17.  The next day, the tenants found a Zippo cigarette lighter at the scene which, according to the applicant, they immediately wanted to hand over to the police, but the police refused to accept it (see also paragraphs 20-21 below). 18.  On 25 December 2010 the applicant informed the police that somebody was trying to break into the premises in which the fire had broken out few days earlier. The police attended at the scene but found nobody. 19.  On 4 January 2011 a fire broke out in one of the flats (occupied by G.K.) in the applicant’s building. 20.  Firefighters and the police immediately responded at the scene. They found traces of forced entry into the flat and a lighter of the same model as that found by the tenants following the fire of 22 December 2010 (see paragraphs 16-17 above). They also found that a pile of old clothes had burned in the living room. In the first interviews conducted with the tenants, one of them stated that G.K.’s former husband had threatened to move by force into the flat in question and had also harassed neighbours. 21.  The next day, the police carried out an onsite inspection and seized a plastic bucket and clothes which they found in the flat. The police furthermore seized a lighter found at the scene and the lighter found by the tenants following the incident of 22 December 2010. The police also took samples from various objects in the flat. The seized material and samples were sent to the police forensic centre for further analysis. 22.  On the same day, the police interviewed the applicant and her neighbours. They reported the following:
-  the applicant argued that M.B. had often visited the building accompanied by several men and had exerted pressure on the tenants to move out of the building. He had offered to the applicant different amounts of money, and at one point one of his men had said that they would easily get rid of the tenants. The applicant knew that some of the tenants had accepted M.B.’s offers. She also heard that some other investors had been interested in the building but that they had changed their mind when they had realised that M.B. had decided to invest there;
-  G.K. stated that she had had problems with M.B., who had threatened her since she had refused to move out of the building. She suspected that M.B. was behind the fire;
-  T.Đ. explained how the tenants had big problems with the investor to whom the owner wanted to sell the house and who wanted to throw them out of the building. She furthermore stated that G.K.’s former husband had said that he would move into the above-mentioned flat (see paragraph 19). She also explained how, following the fire of 22 December 2010, she and her husband had found a lighter of the same type as the one found after the fire of 4 January 2011. This was confirmed by T.Đ.’s husband;
-  LJ.O., who is T.Đ.’s mother, stated that at the time of the incident she had been in her flat when she had heard an explosion and smelled petrol, after which she had seen fire in G.K.’s flat. LJ.O. also stated that the tenants had been often visited by M.B., who had introduced himself as the representative of the owner and who had offered them money to leave the building;
-  M.D. stated that around Christmas two men had knocked on her window but as she had not opened the door to them they had gone to see the applicant and said something to the effect that they had done what she (the applicant) had asked for and that the building was now on fire. 23.  On 5 January 2011 the police lodged a criminal complaint with the State Attorney’s Office against an unknown perpetrator in relation to charges of endangering life and property through dangerous acts or means (arson). 24.  On 11 January 2011 the applicant went to the police station as she wanted to add to her previous statement. The applicant stated that at the time of the 2005 incident she had had problems with her former husband. Moreover, in April or May 2010, M.B. had started coming to the building and talking to the tenants with a view to removing them from the building. He had offered to the applicant different amounts of money to move, but as she had refused he had threatened to move into her flat when she was absent. In December 2010 more men had come in a car to inspect the building. They had said that they represented a certain Ma.Be., who had become the owner of the building. Previously, the applicant had managed to get in touch with Ma.Be. and on that occasion he had stated that he would sell the building and that he did not care about the tenants. Then on 22 December 2010 several men had come with the same car that had been used by those who had come earlier to inspect the building. They had asked about a certain person and left. That evening the fire had broken out in the abandoned retail store. 25.  According to the note of her interview, the applicant also stated that she had heard that a certain person, who at the time of the fire in G.K.’s flat had been carrying out some work there, had been dangerous and had participated in an incident of arson. She also stated that she had heard that a certain L.Č. had become the owner of the building and that a certain O.Č. was also associated with her[1]. 26.  On 17 January 2011 the applicant went to the State Attorney’s Office and alleged that L.Č. (who according to the applicant had become the owner of the building on 21 December 2010) and Ma.Be.[2] had been behind the fires on 22 December 2010 and 4 January 2011. 27.  On 18 January 2011 the applicant informed the police that people, whom she considered to be behind the arson, were trying to break into the building. The police responded at the scene, where they found O.Č., his lawyer and a business associate. 28.  In his interview with the police, O.Č. explained that a few months earlier (on 14 December 2010) his wife, L.Č., had bought the building from V.W-M. He also stated that he had started negotiating with the tenants through a lawyer about the possibility of their removal from the building. He denied threatening them or otherwise being associated with the arson. He refused to participate in a polygraph test, arguing that he had certain psychological problems and was under medication. Moreover, he could not prove his alibi for 4 January 2011. 29.  The police also interviewed O.Č.’s lawyer and his business associate, who explained the circumstances of their business engagement with O.Č. They had no information concerning the arson. The applicant was also interviewed, and she repeated her earlier statement to the police and the State Attorney’s Office. 30.  On 20 January 2011 a fire inspector produced a report according to which the fire on 4 January had been caused by an inflammatory liquid being first spread over the flat and then set on fire using an open flame. 31.  In the period between September and November 2011 the police forensic centre produced reports which found that the material seized from the flat had contained traces of gasoline and that no fingerprint traces had been identified. However, a sample of male DNA had been identified on one of the objects. The DNA sample did not correspond to any of the samples stored in the centre’s database. 32.  In September 2012 the police informed the State Attorney’s Office of the results of the investigation. 33.  In the meantime, on 28 February 2011 the applicant signed a contract with L.Č., represented by her husband O.Č., under which she would move out of the house in exchange for EUR 6,000. She also accepted that she had received the amount in question and that she had no other claims towards L.Č. The applicant argued before the Court that she had signed the contract as a result of threats made by O.Č. According to the applicant, he had promised to pay her an additional EUR 40,000, which he had never done. 34.  On an unspecified date in March 2011 the applicant and the other tenants moved out of the building, following which the building was demolished and a hotel was built on that location. 35.  On 10 July 2011 O.Č. informed the police of a message which he had received from the applicant in which she suggested that O.Č. still owned her money and that she would ensure that he ended up in prison for trying to kill her. Two days later, the applicant called the police and asked them to be present while she took some of her belongings from the flat. 36.  On 9 April 2013 the applicant reported to the police that during 2012, and again between March and April 2013, O.Č. had several times threatened her with violence. 37.  On 20 April 2013 the applicant reported to the police that she had learned that a certain B.N. and D.V. had started the fire in the building where she lived. She also stated that she had talked to D.V., who had on that occasion said that they should have also spilled gasoline on the applicant and set her on fire and that it was not excluded that they would do so. 38.  On 3 June 2013 the police interviewed O.Č., who argued that the applicant was harassing and threatening him in connection with an amount of money that she expected to receive for the flat. However, O.Č. considered that the payment had been settled and that he did not owe anything to her. 39.  Meanwhile, in May, and then in October 2013, the applicant lodged further complaints against O.Č., alleging that he had threatened her in connection with the above-mentioned debt in respect of the flat. 40.  On 9 November 2013 the police informed the State Attorney’s Office of the applicant’s complaints, and the State Attorney’s Office requested that a further interview be conducted with O.Č. 41.  The police interviewed O.Č. on 15 January 2014. He denied making any threats against the applicant but argued that she had harassed and threatened him over the debt, which he considered did not exist. 42.  After making a number of enquiries into the status of her case, on 6 October 2014 the applicant received a letter from the State Attorney’s Office indicating that O.Č. had been questioned and that he had denied all of the applicant’s allegations and that there was no evidence to refute his statement. The State Attorney’s Office also stressed that an investigation into the arson was still pending. 43.  On 6 November 2014 the applicant received a letter from the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) reiterating the information provided by the State Attorney’s Office. 44.  On 17 December 2014 the applicant was questioned by the police concerning her numerous complaints regarding the ineffectiveness of the investigation into her allegations of harassment and threats made by O.Č. On that occasion, she alleged that a number of other individuals were associated with O.Č. and the events leading to her forceful removal from her flat. 45.  On 12 May 2015 the State Attorney’s Office rejected the applicant’s criminal complaints against O.Č. in relation to charges of threats on the grounds that there was no evidence to suggest that he had committed the offence in question. The applicant was instructed that she could take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor. 46.  The investigation into the two instances of arson is still pending.