FIRST SECTION
Application no. 45593/13
Čedo JOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 8 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Čedo Jović, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Belgrade. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Filaković, a lawyer practising in Osijek.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 July 2008 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of having committed war crimes.
His detention was extended several times during the proceedings under Article 102 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding).
On 15 March 2011 the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) found the applicant guilty on charges of war crimes and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
The applicant appealed and on 22 February 2012 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Osijek County Court.
On 2 April 2012 the Supreme Court extended the maximum period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a further year.
On 18 April 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the lawfulness of and grounds for his continued pre-trial detention.
On 1 June 2012 the Osijek County Court found the applicant guilty on charges of war crimes and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
On the same date the Osijek County Court extended the applicant’s detention.
On 14 January 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had been adopted in the meantime on 1 June 2012.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, relying upon Article 5 of the Convention, that he was not able to obtain effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention by the Constitutional Court.
He also cites Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention before the Constitutional Court in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the decisions on the applicant’s detention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy