FIRST SECTION
Application no. 57849/12
Alen SMOKOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 23 July 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Alen Smoković, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Pazin. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Zubović, a lawyer practising in Pazin.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Minor-Offences proceedings
On 4 June 2007 the Labin Minor-Offences Court found the applicant guilty of physically attacking a football judge, one I.R., during a football match in Viškovići on 16 October 2005 at 4.35 p.m. by which he had committed an offence against public peace and order under section 6 of the Act on Minor Offences against Public Peace and Order and fined him with 916 Croatian kuna.
The applicant lodged an appeal and on 18 December 2008 the High Minor-offences Court terminated the proceedings on the ground that the statutory limitation period had expired.
2. Proceedings on indictment
On 10 November 2005 I.R. brought private criminal prosecution against the applicant in the Labin Municipal Court.
On 27 September 2010 that court found the applicant guilty of causing grievous bodily injury to I.R., a football judge, during a football match in Viškovići on 16 October 2005 at about 5 p.m., by which he had committed a criminal offence under Article 98 of the Criminal Code. A suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment was applied with the probation period of one year.
The applicant lodged an appeal. He complained, inter alia, that his right not to be tried twice had been violated.
On 3 May 2011 the Pula County Court upheld the first instance judgment. As regards the alleged violation of the ne bis in idem principle, it held that the minor-offences proceedings had been terminated on the ground that the statutory limitation period had expired and that therefore it could not be said that the applicant had been punished twice.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court on 11 January 2012.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that he was tried twice for the same offence.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant been tried twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? If so, did the proceedings fall within the exceptions envisaged by Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy