Communicated on 8 October 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 41988/13
Miro ČALUŠIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 18 June 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Miro Čalušić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Drenški Lasan, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 January 2013 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of having made usurious contracts on a large scale.
On 28 March 2013 the applicant was indicted in the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) on charges of making usurious contracts.
On 3 April 2013 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1 (2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (governing the risk of collusion and the risk of reoffending). In its reasoning, and on the basis of the evidence before it, the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court stressed:
“...it is entirely obvious that [the applicant] is involved in money-lending in return for disproportionately high pecuniary gain – not only in respect of the victims in question, but also with regard to other people – which suggests special circumstances, that is to say, a real risk that he might reoffend if left at large ...”
The applicant challenged that decision before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), arguing that the reasoning of the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court breached his right to the presumption of innocence.
On 18 April 2013 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance decision.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), reiterating his complaints about the alleged breach of his right to the presumption of innocence.
On 13 May 2013 the Constitutional Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, finding that there was nothing in those decisions which prejudged the applicant’s case.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 May 2013.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court breached his right to the presumption of innocence when extending his pre-trial detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Was the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court respect the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence when extending his pre-trial detention?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy