FIRST SECTION
Application no. 37762/12
Vladimir MILANKOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 29 May 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Milanković, is a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Osijek. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Umićević, 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 20 June 2011 the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion that he had committed war crimes during the Homeland War in Croatia.
He was remanded in pre-trial custody under Article 102 § 1(2) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of tampering with evidence and seriousness of charges).
His detention was extended several times on the same grounds.
On 16 December 2011 the applicant was indicted in the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) on charges of war crimes.
On 19 December 2011 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court ordered the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone (seriousness of charges). It held that the charges of war crimes against the civilian population in 1991 and 1992 in respect of which the applicant had been indicted suggested particularly serious aspects of the case, which warranted his pre-trial detention under the said provision.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), arguing that the first-instance court had failed to specify the particular circumstances warranting his continued detention on the grounds of the seriousness of the charges.
On 13 January 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the Osijek County Court.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), contending that the relevant domestic law providing for pre-trial detention on the grounds of the seriousness of the charges was vague and that the lower courts had failed to provide relevant reasons for his continued detention.
On 2 March 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded.
On 9 March 2012 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seriousness of charges).
The applicant appealed; on 4 April 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.
On 4 June 2012 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court again extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seriousness of charges).
The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, reiterating his previous arguments, and on 29 June 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed his complaints as ill-founded.
On 17 October 2012 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court again extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seriousness of charges).
The applicant appealed against the above decision and on 15 November 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.
It appears that the applicant is still detained pending trial.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention that the relevant domestic law providing for pre-trial detention on the grounds of seriousness of charges was not sufficiently precise; that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive; and that the decisions on his continued pre-trial detention were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s pre-trial detention based on relevant and sufficient reasons?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of all decisions concerning the applicant’s detention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy