CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s36C5EC9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.72pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DD35890 { width:19.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA3A3221 { width:129.09pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 51616/11 Edo IVANČIĆ and TVORNICA CEMENTA UMAG D.O.O. against Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24   March 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The first applicant, Mr Edo Ivančić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Umag. The second applicant, Tvornica Cementa Umag d.o.o., (“the applicant company”) is a limited liability company with a registered seat in Umag. Both applicants were represented before the Court by Mr G. Babić, a lawyer practising in Pula. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik. The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Minor-offence proceedings 4.     On 21 July 2006 the Mining Inspector in the Rijeka Office of the State Inspectorate lodged an application with the Umag Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Umagu ) that minor-offence proceedings be instituted against the applicants. It was alleged that on 28 July 2005 at about 9 a.m. the applicants had carried out mining work and dug up mineral ore for the production of cement in a quarry in the Kravlji Rt area and that they had also starting the mechanical operations of a fixed grinding plant next to a cement factory, all without the requisite permits. They had thus exploited mineral ore without the requisite permit in violation the Mining Act. 5.     On 19 November 2007 the Umag Minor Offences Court terminated the minor-offence proceedings against the applicants owing to the expiry of the statutory-limitation period. Proceedings on indictment 6.     On 26 July 2006 the same State Inspectorate office lodged a criminal complaint with the Buje State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Bujama ) against the applicants alleging that in the period between 28 February 2002 and 28 July 2005 they had carried out mining work such as exploitation of mineral ore for the production of cement in the Kravlji Rt quarry, without the requisite permit. 7.     On 31 March 2008 the Buje State Attorney’s Office lodged an indictment in the Buje Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Bujama ) against the applicants, alleging that in the period between 1 October 2004 and 28 July 2005 they had carried out mining work and dug mineral ore for the production of cement in the Kravlji Rt quarry without the requisite permit, which constituted the criminal offence of unlawful exploitation of ore. 8.     At a hearing held on 24 February 2010 the applicants’ defence lawyer objected that the minor-offence proceedings had already been conducted against the applicants in respect of the same offence, providing a copy of the Umag Minor Offences Court’s decision of 19 November 2007. There was no reply to that objection. 9.     On 15 May 2010 the applicants lodged an objection to the indictment, which was declared inadmissible on 6 September 2010. 10.     On 18 October 2010 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing, inter alia , that the ne bis in idem principle had been violated since they had been prosecuted for the same offence in the minor ‑ offence proceedings. On 24 February 2011 the Constitutional Court declared their complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the impugned decision was not susceptible to constitutional review. 11.     Ultimately, on 13 November 2017 the Pula County Court ( Županijski sud u Puli ) dismissed all charges against the applicants owing to the lapse of the statutory limitation period. Relevant domestic law and practice 12.     The relevant legal framework and practice have been cited in Smoković v. Croatia (no. 57849/12, §§ 13-25, 5 December 2019). COMPLAINTS 13.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair. 14.     They also complained, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, that the principle of ne bis in idem had been violated in their case. THE LAW 15.     The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the relevant parts of which provide as follows: Article 6 “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 “1.     No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.” 16.     The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The applicants contested that argument. 17.     The Court does not consider it necessary to reproduce in detail the parties’ arguments in the present case, since the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 18.     As regards the applicants’ first complaint, that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair, the Court observes that the applicants were ultimately acquitted of all charges (see paragraph 11 above). They can therefore no longer claim to be victims of the violation complained of (see Batmaz v. Turkey , no. 714/08, § 36, 18 February 2014, and Khlyustov v. Russia , no. 28975/05, § 103, 11 July 2013). 19.     As regards the applicants’ second complaint, concerning an alleged violation of the ne bis in idem principle, the Court recalls that it has recently in Smoković v. Croatia (cited above, §§ 35-46) declared an identical complaint incompatible ratione materiae with that provision, finding that a ruling terminating minor-offence proceedings on the basis of the expiry of the statutory limitation period was neither a “conviction” nor an “acquittal” for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. The Court sees no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case. 20.     Accordingly, the complaints raised in the present case are incompatible ratione personae et materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 May 2020.   Renata Degener   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Deputy Registrar   President