Communicated on 28 June 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 2953/14
Đani PANTALON
against Croatia
lodged on 18 December 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Đani Pantalon, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Zadar.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 April 2010 the Imotski Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Imotskom) found the applicant guilty for the minor offence under section 54 § 1 in conjunction with section 92 § 1(27) of the Weapons Act (Zakon o oružju, Official Gazette nos. 63/2007 and 146/2008) for failing to report to the border control the possession of a weapon, namely a diving speargun which he had in his car. It fined the applicant with HRK 1,000 and ordered him to pay HRK 120 for costs of the proceedings (in total approximately EUR 150), and also ordered confiscation of the speargun.
The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment before the High Minor Offences Court (Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske) arguing that section 4 of the Weapons Act expressly provided that the diving spearguns were not weapons within the meaning of that Act, and thus he could not be convicted for failing to report the possession of a weapon to the border control as provided under the Weapons Act.
On 17 October 2012 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgement. It held that the diving speargun could be considered a weapon similar to the crossbow and that the applicant had therefore been obliged to report the possession of that weapon to the border control.
The applicant challenged these findings before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), and on 9 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaints as unfounded. This decision was served on the applicant on 24 June 2013.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Weapons Act (Zakon o oružju, Official Gazette nos. 63/2007 and 146/2008) provide as follows:
Section 4
“Within the meaning of this Act it shall not be considered as a weapon: ... diving spearguns ...”
Section 54
“(1) Croatian nationals and foreigners, when crossing the national border, are obliged to report [the possession of] weapons and ammunition to the border police and custom control.
...”
Section 92
“(1) A physical person shall be fined between 3,000 and 15,000 kunas for a minor offence:
...
27) if he or she does not report a weapon and ammunition to the police and custom border control when crossing the national border (section 54 § 1)
...”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention that the competent courts erred in the interpretation of the relevant domestic law when finding him guilty in the minor offences proceedings.
He also alleged, under Article 7 of the Convention, that he was convicted of an offence under the Weapons Act, which did not constitute an offence as provided under section 4 of the Weapons Act.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, are the decisions of the domestic courts sufficiently reasoned with regard to the legal basis for the applicant’s conviction?
2. Was the applicant convicted of an act which did not constitute an offence under the relevant domestic law, namely the relevant Weapons Act, contrary to Article 7 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are required to provide copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy