SANADER v. CROATIA and 1 other appmication

Published on 22 September 2025

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 2001/23 and 31914/23
Ivo SANADER against Croatia
and Zsolt Tamás HERNÁDI against Croatia
lodged on 30 December 2022 and 11 August 2023 respectively
communicated on 2 September 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern criminal proceedings conducted against the applicants on charges of bribery in relation to agreements concluded in January 2009 between the Croatian Government and a Hungarian oil and gas company MOL, by which MOL acquired control over a Croatian oil company INA. The proceedings, commonly referred to as “INA-MOL”, attracted great publicity.

Mr Sanader (applicant in application no. 2001/23, Prime Minister of Croatia at the time), initially stood trial alone and was convicted by a judgment which became final in 2014. In July 2015 his conviction was quashed by the Constitutional Court which held that the lower courts should not have started their examination of the applicant’s guilt or innocence with a conclusion that the agreements between the Croatian Government and MOL were contrary to the interests of Croatia, because that had blurred the difference between the applicant’s individual liability for the criminal offence of receiving a bribe and the political responsibility of the Croatian Government for the conclusion of the agreements, and had instrumentalised the State interest for the purpose of proving, in criminal proceedings, Mr Sanader’s guilt.

In December 2015 the retrial against Mr Sanader was joined to the trial against Mr Hernádi (applicant in application no. 31914/23, a Hungarian national and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MOL).

On 27 December 2019 the applicants were convicted of bribery and sentenced to imprisonment on the basis of the following findings:

-  sometime, by 30 October 2008 at the latest, Mr Sanader agreed to accept a bribe of 10 million euros (EUR) from Mr Hernádi in exchange for ensuring the conclusion of the agreements giving MOL control over INA, even though there was no basis for it in MOL’s shareholding, and transferring INA’s loss‑making gas business to the Croatian State;

-  Mr Sanader then used his position and authority to influence members of the Croatian Government, who in January 2009 unanimously voted in favor of concluding those agreements, whereby MOL’s demands in the negotiation process with the Croatian State were entirely satisfied;

-  in June 2009 Mr Hernádi ensured payment of the agreed sum to Mr Sanader through one I.F., specifically through concluding two fictitious consulting agreements, on the basis of which a certain Swiss company X. (connected to one R.J.) received EUR 5 million from two Cypriot companies. That money was sometime later supposed to be transferred to Mr Sanader by R.J. The transfer of money to Mr Sanader never took place.

The EUR 5 million were found to be proceeds of crime. As they never reached Mr Sanader, the trial court ordered a Swiss company D. (a legal successor of the X. company who received the money from the Cypriot companies, and owned by R.J.), to pay that money to the Croatian State. The money has to date not been paid to the State nor has it been collected by the State through enforcement proceedings.

The central evidence in the case was that of R.J., a Croatian businessman who had been arrested in relation to a separate corruption investigation and, after being released from a four-month pre-trial detention, approached the competent prosecuting authorities and stated that Mr Sanader had asked him to arrange the receipt of the money, which he had done, pointing to the contracts concluded in June 2009 between the Swiss company X. and the two Cypriot companies.

R.J. was never prosecuted in connection to the matter. In the proceedings against the applicants, it was denied that he had been given immunity by the prosecution. He was questioned as a witness multiple times during the trial.

On 7 July 2021 the Supreme Court upheld the applicants’ conviction. On 12 July 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed Mr Sanader’s subsequent constitutional complaint. Its decision was served on Mr Sanader’s representatives on 2 September 2022. On 18 April 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed Mr Hernadi’s constitutional complaint.

Meanwhile, on 17 January 2014 Croatia submitted a request for arbitration before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), seeking to declare the agreement by which MOL assumed control over INA null and void on the basis of, inter alia, the alleged bribery offered to Mr Sanader by MOL’s CEO Mr Hernádi for the conclusion of the agreement.

On 23 December 2016 the PCA dismissed as unfounded Croatia’s bribery allegation, stating that it was “quite satisfied that no judge or tribunal seeing or reading R.J.’s evidence would come to any other conclusion but that he was a wholly unreliable witness”. It further found that none of the presented documents led to Mr Sanader; that, R.J.’s testimony apart, nothing permitted a finding, even on the balance of probabilities, that the money received by the X. company had been intended for Mr Sanader, and that Croatia had failed to prove that the source of the money had been MOL.

Furthermore, on 26 November 2013 MOL instituted proceedings against Croatia in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), seeking redress for the alleged breaches of the Energy Charter Treaty. In those proceedings Croatia also argued that the Croatian Government-MOL agreements were a result of a bribe offered by MOL to Mr Sanader.

On 5 July 2022 the ICSID dismissed Croatia’s corruption allegation, noting that it stood solely on R.J.’s testimony, whereas his statements given before the ICSID and in the criminal proceedings in Croatia (including in the trial conducted anew) showed that he was an unreliable witness, and that Croatia had not succeeded to prove, to the required standard, that the bribery had occurred. Croatia was ordered to pay a multi-million United States dollars compensation to MOL.

Furthermore, on 4 October 2022 MOL submitted another request for arbitration (before the PCA), arguing that Croatia had breached the agreements regarding MOL’s investments in INA. In 2024 MOL also started another arbitration against Croatia before the ICSID. Both proceedings are currently pending.

Before the Court, Mr Sanader and Mr Hernádi complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, that their conviction by the Croatian courts was arbitrary and ran contrary to the guarantees of a fair trial and the principle of the equality of arms. They submit that they were unable to put forward their defence, that the trial court dismissed (without any or without adequate reasons) their proposals to adduce or have disclosed evidence, going in particular to the credibility of R.J.’s testimony and the non-existence of the link between the money paid to the Swiss company and the applicants, and that the domestic courts failed to subject to a critical analysis the credibility and the probative value of R.J.’s statements.

Mr Sanader further complains, relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, that the following publications and statements have put pressure on the courts to convict him and breached his presumption of innocence:

(i)  publication on the Government of Croatia’s website on 6 February 2019 (ten months before the trial court found Mr Sanader guilty of bribery), made in connection with the arbitration proceedings initiated by MOL against Croatia before the ICSID in 2013, in which it was stated that “during the fourth hearing in the arbitration proceedings with MOL, Croatia has put forward its arguments; it is expected that they would be accepted” and that “Croatia sustained damage as a result of the agreements which are a product of corruptive actions”;

(ii)  the Government of Croatia’s request for arbitration brought before the PCA against MOL in 2014, in which the Government had stated that the main evidence in support of the request was the first-instance court’s judgment rendered in the INA-MOL trial in 2012, by which Mr Sanader had been found guilty of receiving millions of euros of bribes for the agreements with MOL, and that the judgment and the bribe had put into question the entire transaction by which MOL had acquired control over INA. Mr Sanader argues that the success of the arbitration proceedings was thereby made dependent on the outcome of the INA-MOL trial, and

(iii)  the following statements published in the media, allegedly breaching Mr Sanader’s presumption of innocence:

-  Ž.J., Minister of Science, Education and Sport at the time, who stated on 17 November 2013 that Croatia had been robbed in the name of the Sanader family,

-  I.V.S., Member of Parliament at the time, who stated on 4 October 2015 in an open letter to Mr Sanader that he had destroyed Croatia and had sent a message that stealing paid off,

-  Z.M., Member of Parliament at the time, who stated on 9 December 2010 that it was clear how personal fortunes and political campaigns had been financed,

-  D.K., Member of Parliament at the time, who stated on 20 July 2011 that Mr Sanader had impoverished the people,

-  V.Š.O., Member of Parliament at the time, who stated on 20 November 2012 that Mr Sanader had plagued the domestic political scene and had already during the war created a model of robbing the state, which he had later on, as a Prime Minister, perfectioned, and

-  N.Z., Member of Parliament at the time, who stated on 21 February 2012 that the Croatian citizens should be ashamed of the thefts made by Mr Sanader, and on 12 March 2013 stated that Mr Sanader had embarrassed the country.

Mr Hernádi also complains under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention about being convicted of a criminal offence after the expiry of the statute of limitations for prosecution. He argues that under the relevant case-law the criminal offence of giving a bribe is considered perpetrated by the conclusion of the corruption agreement (in his case allegedly by 30 October 2008), so that the statute of limitations should have been calculated from that moment, and not from 17 June 2009, when the alleged bribe was paid. He complains that the trial court remained silent on the matter and the Supreme Court’s and the Constitutional Court’s calculation of the time limit had no basis in law.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Did Mr Sanader and Mr Hernádi have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention?

In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the conditions afforded to the defence to present its case? Did the domestic courts’ decisions not to examine the evidence proposed by the applicants undermine the overall fairness of the proceedings (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139-168, 18 December 2018, and Abdullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 6005/08, §§ 58-66, 7 March 2019)?

Was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment based on a proper examination of the submissions and evidence respected in the present case (see, for example, Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, §§ 205‑10, 16 November 2017)? Did the domestic courts address the substantiated objections raised by the applicants in respect of the reliability and accuracy of the evidence against them and have they provided adequate reasons for the manner in which they assessed evidence of allegedly contradictory and highly questionable nature (see, for instance, Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, §§ 205-207, 26 July 2011, and Ajdarić v. Croatia, no. 20883/09, §§ 46 and 51, 13 December 2011)?

Did the domestic courts observe the basic requirement of criminal justice that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?

The parties are requested to support their responses to the above questions by references to specific pages of the (domestic) judgments, decisions, transcripts of hearings, or other relevant documents.

2.  Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Sanader on account of the publication on the Government of Croatia’s website on 6 February 2019, statements in the Government of Croatia’s request for arbitration brought before the PCA in 2014 against MOL, and the statements by public officials in connection with the criminal charges against him?

3.  Did the domestic courts establish the date when Mr Hernádi committed the criminal offence of giving a bribe contrary to the domestic courts’ case‑law? Alternatively, is there divergent case-law of the domestic courts on establishing the moment when the criminal offence of giving a bribe is committed? If so, was the manner in which the domestic courts established the date when Mr Hernádi committed the criminal offence of giving a bribe unforeseeable?

Depending on the answer to the above questions, was Mr Hernádi found guilty of a criminal offence the prosecution for which had in the meantime become time-barred, contrary to Article 6 § 1 and/or Article 7 of the Convention (see, for instance, Antia and Khupenia v. Georgia, no. 7523/10, § 39, 8 June 2020, and Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 101, 23 February 2016)?