FIRST SECTION
Application no. 51616/11
Edo IVANČIĆ and TVORNICA CEMENTA UMAG D.O.O.
against Croatia
lodged on 1 August 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The first applicant, Mr Edo Ivančić is a Croatian national, born in 1948 and lives in Umag. The second applicant, Tvornica Cementa Umag d.o.o., is a factory with its seat in Umag. They are represented before the Court by Mr G. Babić, a lawyer practising in Pula.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Minor Offences Proceedings
3. On 21 July 2006 the State Inspectorate, Rijeka Office, Mining Inspector, lodged a request with the Umag Minor Offences Court, that the minor-offences proceedings be instituted against the applicants. It was alleged that they had on 28 July 2005 at about 9 a.m. carried out mining works and dig mineral ore for the production of cement in a stone pit in the area “Kravlji Rt” and also set into motion a fixed grinding plant placed next to a cement factory, all without a required concession. They had thus carried out exploitation of mineral ore without a required concession in violation the Mining Act.
4. On 19 November 2007 the Umag Minor Offences Court terminated the minor offences proceedings against the first applicant and the second applicant company on the ground that in the meantime statutory limitation period as regards the minor offence at issue had expired.
2. Proceedings on Indictment
5. On 26 July 2006 same State Inspectorate lodged a criminal complaint with the Buje State Attorney’s Office against the first applicant and the second applicant company alleging that in the period between 28 February 2002 and 28 July 2005 they had carried out mining works such as exploitation and digging of mineral ore for the production of cement in stone pit “Kravlji Rt”, without the required concession.
6. On 31 March 2008 the Buje State Attorney’s Office lodged an indictment in the Buje Municipal Court against the applicants, alleging that in the period between 1 October 2004 and 28 July 2005 they had carried out mining works and dig mineral ore for the production of cement in the stone pit “Kravlji Rt” without a required concession which constituted the criminal offence of unlawful exploitation of ore.
7. At a hearing held on 24 February 2010 the applicants’ defence lawyer objected that the minor-offences proceedings had already been conducted against the applicants in respect of the same offence and enclosed a copy of the Umag Minor Offences Court decision of 19 November 2007. There has been no reply to that objection.
8. On 15 May 2010 the applicants lodged an objection to the indictment. It was declared inadmissible on 6 September 2010.
9. On 18 October 2010 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the principle of ne bis in idem has been violated since they had been prosecuted for the same offence in the minor offences proceedings. On 24 February 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the impugned decision was not susceptible to the constitutional control.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them have been unfair.
They further complain under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 that the principle of ne bis in idem has been violated.
ITMarkFactsComplaintsEND
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Have the applicants been tried twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy