Communicated on 8 September 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 57725/13
Manuel VULIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 19 August 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Manuel Vulić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Prague. He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Gulišija, a lawyer practising in Split.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in May 2011 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in connection with a suspicion of drug trafficking.
The investigation was immediately open against him and several other individuals and extended for a further six months on 9 November 2011.
On 16 May 2012 the applicant and several other individuals were indicted in the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) on charges of drug trafficking.
Throughout that period the applicant’s pre-trial detention was several times extended on the grounds of the risk of reoffending and the gravity of charges (Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and as of 20 February 2013 only on the grounds of the risk of reoffending (Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
On 17 May 2013 the Split County Court, relying on Articles 131 § 3 and 127 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in conjunction with Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 35 § 2 of the Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime, extended the maximum two-year statutory time-limit for the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a further six months until 19 November 2013.
The applicant appealed before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against this decision arguing that there had been no legal basis in the relevant domestic law or any justified reason to extend the maximum time-limit of his pre-trial detention.
On 7 June 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, noting the following:
“Furthermore, the accused Manuel Vulić, S.S. and V.Š. are not correct when they argue that in the case at issue the maximum statutory time-limit fort their pre-trial detention, under Article 35 § 2 of the 2009 Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime and Article 133 § 1(4) of the 2008 Code of Criminal Procedure, is two years. ... [D]uring the investigation, under Article 35 § 1 of the 2009 Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime, the pre-trial detention was extended and thus, according to the cited provision, it lasted twelve months. Article 35 § 2 of the 2009 Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime, which is disputed in the appeals, provide for the extension of the time-limit of detention during the investigation for a period of six months. However, that provision is obviously by a mistake related to Article 130 § 2 of the 2008 Code of Criminal Procedure, because this way it merely reiterates what was stated under paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the 2009 Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime, which makes it incomprehensible. It is therefore necessary to interpret Article 35 § 2 of the 2009 Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime within the meaning of Article 28 § 3 of the [former – 2001] Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime. Accordingly, correct interpretation of the cited provisions of law suggests that in case when the pre-trial detention had been extended under Article 35 § 1 of the 2009 Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime, the overall maximum period of pre-trial detention under Article 133 § 1 of the 2008 Code of Criminal Procedure can be extended for six months. Thus, having in mind the sentence which can be imposed for the offence for which the accused are charged with, the first-instance court was correct when holding that the pre-trial detention for the accused Manuel Vulić, S.S. and V.Š. can last two years and six months (Article 133 § 1(4) of the 2008 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 35 § 2 of the 2009 Act on the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime).”
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) arguing, inter alia, that the decision of the Supreme Court had been arbitrary and had no basis in the relevant law.
On 11 July 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded on the grounds that it did not find any arbitrariness in the conduct of the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, about the alleged unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention after the expiry of the maximum statutory time-limits for his pre-trial detention and about the excessive length of his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did his deprivation of liberty complied with the requirement of lawfulness under paragraph (c) of this provision?
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?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy