FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BEČEHELI v. CROATIA
(Application no. 8855/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 May 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision
In the case of Bečeheli v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 8855/08) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Marijan Bečeheli (“the applicant”), on 9 January 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr Lj. Drageljević, a lawyer practising in Rijeka. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. On 21 March 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Lepoglava Penitentiary.
5. On 14 June 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Rijeka County Court along with other twenty two accused, on charges of drug trafficking, offering illegal substances to a number of persons and extortion.
6. On 5 January 2006 the Rijeka County Court pronounced a judgement whereby it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.
7. On 5 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from the Rijeka Prison (Zatvor u Rijeci) to the Zagreb Prison (Zatvor u Zagrebu).
8. On 4 September 2006 a written copy of the judgement was served on the applicant’s representative.
9. Both the applicant and the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Rijeci) appealed against the first-instance judgement.
10. On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) allowed an appeal by the State Attorney’s Office and increased the applicant’s prison sentence to nine years and six months.
11. On 30 July 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). He claimed that the Supreme Court’s judgment was in breach of his constitutional rights to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to free communication with his defence counsel, and that illegally obtained evidence had been used in the criminal proceedings against him.
12. On 23 December 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 January 2011.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
13. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
14. The Government disputed the admissibility of this complaint by arguing that the applicant had abused the right of application in that he had not informed the Court of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 December 2010.
15. The Court reiterates that, should an applicant omit to submit all the documents which the Government, or even the Court, would find relevant for the final examination of a case, this should not per se amount to abuse of the right of application (see Milošević v. Serbia (dec.), § 40, no. 20037/07, 5 July 2011). It therefore considers that the fact the applicant in the present case had failed to inform it in a timely manner of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 December 2010, though regrettable, does not, in the circumstances, constitute an abuse of his right of application. The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected.
16. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
17. The period to be taken into consideration began on 30 July 2007 when the applicant lodged his constitutional complaint and ended on 14 January 2011 when the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative. It thus lasted more than three years and five months.
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
18. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
19. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for example, Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 21, 16 June 2005).
20. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
21. The applicant also complained that he had not had adequate time to prepare his defence because of the voluminous case-file and the fact that he had been transferred to another prison during the appellate proceedings. He further complained that certain evidence, which had been used against him in the criminal proceedings, had been obtained illegally. He relied on Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention.
22. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
24. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 May 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy