AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 28400/95
by Ljubo MAJARIC
against Slovenia
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 12 April 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 13 December 1994
by Ljubo MAJARIC against Slovenia and registered on 1 September 1995
under file No. 28400/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Slovenian national born in 1952. When he
introduced his application he was in detention in Nova Gorica.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Particular circumstances of the case
On 6 December 1991 the applicant was charged with assault on a
minor and abduction (odvzem mladoletne osebe) under Article 103 para. 1
in conjunction with Article 96 paras. 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.
On 14 December 1991 the judge at the Nova Gorica First Instance
Court (Temeljno sodisce) ordered the applicant's detention on remand
under Article 191 para. 2 sub-paras. 3 and 4 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in view of the nature of the offence and danger of its
repetition.
On 10 January 1992 the First Instance Court ordered the
applicant's continued detention until 13 March 1992, considering the
reasons for the detention on remand were still valid.
On 12 March 1992 the Supreme Court prolonged the period of the
applicant's detention to 13 April 1992 in accordance with Article 191
para. 2 sub-para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court
considered that the preliminary investigations had not been completed
and noted difficulties arising in the examination of witnesses.
On 25 March 1992 the Nova Gorica Prosecutor (Javni tozilec)
instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for sexual
assault on a minor (spolni napad na osebo mlajso od 14 let), abduction
and maltreatment (zanemarjanje mladoletne osebe in surovo ravnanje) of
a minor, pursuant to Article 103 paras. 1, 2 and 4 and Articles 96
para. 2 and 94 para. 1 of the Criminal Code.
On 23 April 1992 the applicant applied to the First Instance
Court for release, challenging the grounds for justification of his
continued detention. The application was dismissed on 24 April 1992.
By decision dated 30 April 1992 of the First Instance Court, the
applicant was released.
On 16 June 1992 the judge at the First Instance Court ordered the
applicant's new detention on remand pursuant to Article 191 para. 2
sub-paras. 3 and 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the meantime, on 5 June 1992, the applicant's trial opened
before the Nova Gorica First Instance Court but was adjourned the same
day.
On 28 August and 3 September 1992 the First Instance Court again
adjourned the applicant's trial. On 9 September 1992 the court ordered
the applicant's medical examination.
By decision dated 17 September 1992 of the First Instance Court,
the applicant was released from his second detention on remand.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention
that inadequate reasons were given for his detention.
2. He also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that
he did not have a fair trial before an independent and impartial
tribunal within a reasonable period of time.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains of the inadequacy of the reasons for his
detention on remand. He invokes Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the
Convention which, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following
cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
c. the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for
the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority
on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when
it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing
an offence or fleeing after having done so;"
The Commission is not, however, called upon to decide whether the
facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation
of the above provisions. The Commission recalls that the Convention
only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry
into force with respect to that Party. In the present case, the
applicant was released from his detention on remand on
17 September 1992, which was before 28 June 1994, the date of the entry
into force of the Convention with respect to the Republic of Slovenia.
It follows that this part of the application is outside the
competence ratione temporis of the Commission and therefore
incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning
of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
2. The applicant also complains that he did not have a fair trial
before an independent and impartial tribunal. He invokes Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:
"In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him,
everyone is entitled to a fair hearing ... within a reasonable
time by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."
The Commission notes however that the criminal proceedings
against the applicant are still pending. The complaint, as regards the
impartiality and independence of the tribunals, is therefore premature.
It follows that in this respect the complaint is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. The applicant complains about the length of the criminal
proceedings. The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of
the applicant's submissions, determine the admissibility of this
complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule
48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to communicate this part of
the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN its examination of the complaint concerning
the length of the applicant's criminal proceedings; and,
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy