FIRST SECTION
Application no. 26211/13
Vlatko ŠOŠ
against Croatia
lodged on 3 April 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vlatko Šoš, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Grubeša, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 May 2011 the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion of drug trafficking.
On 20 May 2011 an investigating judge (sudac istrage) of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention (istražni zatvor) for one month under Article 123 § 1 (2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending and gravity of charges).
The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 27 May 2011 and on 6 June 2011 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed it as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge.
On 18 June 2011 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months on the same grounds (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending and gravity of charges).
On 30 June 2011 the applicant appealed to a three-judge panel of the Split County Court which on 7 July 2011 dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.
On 18 August 2011 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months under Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges). The judge found that there were no grounds to extend the applicant’s detention on account of the risk of collusion since all witnesses had been questioned. As to the risk of reoffending and gravity of charges, the investigating judge used the same wording as in his previous decision.
On 2 September 2011 the applicant appealed to a three-judge panel of the Split County Court which on 27 September 2011 dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, reiterating its previous arguments.
On 18 October 2011 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months using the same wording as in his previous decision.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 21 October 2011 and on 28 October 2011 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed it as ill-founded, reiterating its previous arguments.
On 15 November 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) arguing that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention.
On 18 November 2011 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for further two months. In its decision, the investigating judge merely noted that the reasons on which the applicant’s detention had been initially ordered had not changed and therefore he extended the applicant’s detention.
On 25 November 2011 the applicant appealed and on 6 December 2011 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, reiterating its previous arguments.
On 9 and 16 December 2011 the applicant urged the Constitutional Court to decide on his constitutional complaint of 15 November 2011.
On 22 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had been adopted in the meantime, namely on 18 November 2011, and that he was no longer detained based on the impugned decision.
On 18 January 2012 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for further two months merely noting that the reasons for his detention had not changed.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on 25 January 2012 and on 31 January 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed it as ill-founded, reiterating its previous arguments.
On 14 February 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court arguing that his detention had been extended throughout the investigation, by always using the same wording and stereotype formulae.
On 22 February 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower court.
The investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for further two months on 16 March 2012, again merely noting that the reasons for his detention had not changed.
The applicant appealed on 21 March 2012 and on 29 March 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, reiterating its previous arguments. It also examined the applicant’s request for imposing less severe alternative preventive measures but found that it was not possible to apply them in the circumstances of the applicant’s case.
On 16 May 2012 the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Državno odvjetništvo, Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta) indicted the applicant and nine other persons in the Split County Court on charges of drug trafficking.
On 18 May 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and gravity of charges) without setting any time-limits for detention.
Against the above decision the applicant appealed on 25 May 2012 to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) arguing that the Split County Court had failed to adduce any relevant reason warranting his continued detention.
On 28 May 2012 the applicant lodged a reply to the indictment (odgovor na optužnicu) before the Split County Court arguing that the indictment had a number of substantive and procedural flaws.
On 15 June 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision on his pre-trial detention of 18 May 2012 as ill-founded.
On 13 August 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court again extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention reiterating its previous arguments and without setting any time-limits for detention.
On 28 August 2012 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court and on 12 September 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.
Against the above decision, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 22 October 2012. He contended that his pre-trial detention had been constantly extended throughout the proceedings always using the same stereotype formulae and phrases. The applicant considered, therefore, that the lower courts had failed to adduce any relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention. He pointed out to the wording of the decisions extending his detention and the fact that his detention was extended during the trial without setting any time-limits.
On 6 November 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts.
On 9 November 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention using the same phrases and wording as in its previous decisions and without setting the time-limits for detention.
The applicant appealed against the above decision to the Supreme Court on 16 November 2012.
On 23 November 2012 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the lack of diligence in the conduct of the proceedings. He pointed out that the Split County Court had held a hearing for the preliminary examination of the indictment on 4 October 2012 and that the hearing was adjourned since the defence lawyers lodged an appeal concerning the admissibility of evidence. However, the Supreme Court never decided on that appeal which was, in the applicant’s view, incompatible with the requirement of necessary diligence in the conduct of the proceedings.
On 28 November 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision on his pre-trial detention of 9 November 2012 as ill-founded.
On 25 January 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention using the same phrases and wording as in its previous decisions and without setting the time-limits for detention.
On the same day, the three-judge panel confirmed the indictment and preferred the case to trial.
The applicant appealed against the decision on his pre-trial detention to the Supreme Court on 4 February 2013.
On 20 February 2013 the Supreme Court found that the applicant’s detention was to be extended only under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending) because, due to amendments of the relevant domestic law, it was not possible to remand the applicant on the ground of the gravity of charges.
It appears that the applicant is still detained pending trial.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o kaznenom postupku, Official Gazette nos. 152/2008, 76/2009, 80/2011, 121/2011, 91/2012, 143/2012) provides:
Decision on pre-trial detention
Article 124
“(1) The pre-trial detention shall be ordered and extended by a written court decision.
(2) ... [A] decision on the pre-trial detention shall provide:
1) if investigation is conducted, specification of the investigation order;
2) legal grounds for detention;
3) time-limits of detention;
4) relevant provision concerning the manner of calculation of the previous deprivation of liberty and indication of the time of the arrest;
5) the amount of bail which may substitute the pre-trial detention.
(3) The decision on the pre-trial detention shall be reasoned so as to provide specific and full indication of facts and relevant evidence concerning the reasonable suspicion that the defendant has committed the offence, the grounds [for detention], as well as the reasons why the pre-trial detention should not be replaced with a less severe measure, and any decision concerning the bail.
... “
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, under Article 5 of the Convention, about the alleged unlawfulness and unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention, and lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the decisions on his pre-trial detention of 18 May 2012, 13 August 2012, 9 November 2012 and 25 January 2013 comply with the requirement of lawfulness under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, since there was no time-limit set as regards the period of the applicant’s detention?
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?
3. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention before the Constitutional Court in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy