CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 31 août 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s8D7B8CC6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s99DBB6F { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8B9A8755 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3283E4F4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3F598E3F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s399ED93 { margin-left:5.67pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9FA4A3D6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5CAA7D50 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF2EEE8EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2174CC88 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.17pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sAD004EF2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBECED716 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFA4F1A95 { width:183.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s863EC76E { width:219.61pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF GALOVIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 45512/11)     JUDGMENT Art 4 P7 • Right not to be tried or punished twice • Proceedings and penalties for minor offences and on indictment forming part of a coherent whole to punish individual acts and patterns of domestic violence in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner • Duality of proceedings following complementary purposes and foreseeable for applicant • Interaction between courts, deduction of sentence and sufficient connection in time between various proceedings, bearing in mind specific dynamics in the context of domestic violence Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (b) and (c) • Fair hearing • Adequate time and facilities to prepare defence before appeal court session and respect for the right to be legally represented • Applicant’s absence from appeal court session   STRASBOURG 31 August 2021   FINAL   30/11/2021     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Galović v. Croatia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Péter Paczolay, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Alena Poláčková,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the above application against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Miljenko Galović (“the applicant”), on 18 July 2011, the decision to give notice to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning the right not to be tried or punished twice, the applicant’s absence from the session of the second-instance court, and the complaints concerning his right to defend himself in person or through effective legal assistance and his right to be afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application, Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant was convicted of several minor offences of domestic violence. Ultimately, he was also convicted of domestic violence and child neglect in criminal proceedings on indictment. He complained under Article   6 § 3   (b) of the Convention that, owing to the brevity of the period between the date when he had been informed of the appeal court’s session and the actual date of that session, he had not had sufficient time to find a lawyer and to prepare his defence. He further complained that his absence from the appeal court session resulted in a breach of his rights under Article   6 § 3   (c) of the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained that he had been tried and convicted twice of the same offence contrary to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Zagreb. He was represented before the Court by Ms   T. Milanković Podbrežnički, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 3.     The Croatian Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   Š.   Stažnik. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5 .     On 4 July 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) found the applicant guilty in criminal proceedings concerning domestic violence and neglect and abuse of a minor child for the period between March 2002 and the end of February 2005. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended for a period of five years. That judgment was upheld on appeal and the suspended sentence was subsequently revoked (see paragraph 33 below). The minor-offence proceedings 6 .     Meanwhile, on 6 October 2006 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Zagrebu ) found the applicant guilty of a minor offence of domestic violence under section 4 of the Protection against Domestic Violence Act (see paragraph 68 below) against his minor daughter Z.G., committed on 5 October 2006. He was sentenced to fifty days’ imprisonment suspended for one year. 7 .     On 2 February 2007 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court found the applicant guilty of a minor offence of domestic violence against his wife Mi.G. and his son H.G committed on 30 January 2007. He was sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment, whereas his previous suspended sentence had been revoked (see paragraph 6 above) and he was sentenced to a total of fifty ‑ nine days’ imprisonment. 8 .     On 3 April 2007 the same court found the applicant guilty of a minor offence of domestic violence against his wife Mi.G., his son H.G. and his minor daughter Z.G. committed earlier that same day. He was sentenced to forty days’ imprisonment suspended for ten months. 9 .     On 16 January 2008 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court found the applicant guilty of a minor offence of domestic violence, in that on 10   January 2008 he had verbally insulted his daughters Z.G. and M.G. and his wife Mi.G. The applicant was given a suspended sentence of seventy-six days’ imprisonment, taking into account a previously imposed suspended sentence (see paragraph 8 above), with a one-year probation period. That judgment was upheld on appeal. 10.     On 4 November 2008 the Kutina Social Welfare Centre received a complaint from Mi.G. She alleged that on 3 November 2008 the applicant had behaved violently in their family home, had blamed her for the loss of his job and had been threatening to kill her since 2005. She produced medical documentation of the same day, indicating that she had sustained injuries to her head. The Kutina Social Welfare Centre lodged a criminal complaint with the police. 11 .     On 4 November 2008 the police instituted minor-offence proceedings against the applicant before the Zagreb Minor Offences Court for the minor offence of domestic violence under section 4 and section 18(3) of the Protection against Domestic Violence Act committed on 3 November 2008 against Mi.G. – who by that time was his former spouse – and his daughter M.G. 12.     On the same day the applicant was arrested and placed in detention. 13 .     On 17 November 2008 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court found the applicant guilty of violent behaviour within the family towards Mi.G. and his older daughter M.G. and sentenced him to thirty days’ imprisonment. At the same time it revoked the applicant’s previous suspended sentence (see paragraphs   8 and 9 above), and imposed a sentence of 112 days’ imprisonment in total. The relevant part of that judgment read as follows: “The accused, Miljenko Galović, ... is guilty in that on 3 and 4 November 2008 at 10.02 a.m. in [his] family house in ... while being under the influence of alcohol, he behaved violently within [his] family, in that on 3 November 2008 at about 4 p.m. he verbally insulted his daughter M.G. and former spouse Mi.G. by saying to them ‘Whores, sluts, I have lost my job because of you!’, after which his daughter M. left the house, and after her return at about 8.30 p.m. he continued to insult her by saying ‘Slut, whore, you and your mother, I have lost my job because of you!’, after which she locked herself in a room while the accused banged at the door of her room, continuing to insult her by saying ‘Slut, whore, get out of the house, go to your lover, go away!’, and on 3 November 2008 at 5 p.m. he verbally assaulted his former spouse Mi.G. by saying ‘Whore, do you know that I got fired today because of you. I will throw you out of the house, I will kill you. Now you have no alimony, the bank will take your assets. See how stupid you are, a whore from Moslavina-Zagorje!’, after which he went to sleep and when he woke up at 6.30 p.m. he went to the room where his former spouse was and continued to verbally insult her by saying ‘Whore, I lost my job today’, after which he physically assaulted her by approaching the bed on which she was sitting, grabbing her by the hair with both hands and throwing her onto the bed. He [continued to] hold her by the hair with his left hand and with his right hand he slapped her several times on the left cheek and ear while saying to her ‘Come on, shout, shout, I will kill you before the police arrive. If you put me in prison, after two years I will find you, you are mine!’ ... The court inspected ... the record of examination of blood alcohol [of 4 November 2008].” 14 .     By a judgment of 28 January 2009, the High Minor Offences Court altered the legal characterisation of the offence and held that it was an offence under section 18(1) of the Protection against Domestic Violence Act, and not section 18(3) of that Act. Otherwise, it dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thus became final. The proceedings on indictment 15.     On 4 November 2008 Mi.G. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Kutina police, concerning the events of 3 November 2008. On 2 December 2008 the police supplemented Mi.G.’s criminal complaint with previous events covering the period between February 2005 and 4 November 2008 and forwarded it to the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office. 16.     On 2 December 2008 the applicant was transferred from detention for minor offences to criminal detention, on suspicion of having committed criminal offences: domestic violence against his spouse, his two daughters and his son; and child neglect and abuse against his younger daughter. 17 .     On 3 December 2008, referring among other things to documents on the basis of which the previous minor offence proceedings had been conducted, the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office requested the investigating judge to conduct investigative activities in respect of the applicant in relation to criminal offences: four counts of domestic violence perpetrated against his former spouse, his two daughters and his son, and one count of child neglect and abuse against his younger daughter Z.G. On the same day the applicant was heard by an investigating judge of the same court, in the presence of E.H, a defence lawyer of his own choosing. He denied the charges against him. The investigating judge ordered that the applicant be detained for forty-eight hours on the grounds that there was a danger that he would suborn witnesses. 18.     The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended throughout the investigation and his trial. 19 .     On 12 December 2008 the applicant sent his written defence to the investigating judge. 20.     On 15 December 2008 the investigating judge heard evidence from: an expert witness in psychiatry who had carried out a psychiatric examination of the applicant in 2005, a lawyer from the Social Welfare Centre in charge of the applicant and his family, and the applicant’s former spouse Mi.G. Neither the applicant nor his defence lawyer was present. 21.     On 20 January 2009 the investigating judge heard evidence from the applicant’s son H.G and his older daughter M.G. The applicant’s defence lawyer was present. 22.     On 21 January 2009 the investigating judge heard evidence from the applicant’s younger daughter Z.G. Neither the applicant nor his defence lawyer was present. 23 .     On 26 January 2009 the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office indicted the applicant before the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court ( Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu , hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) for criminal offences: four counts of domestic violence as defined in Article 215a of the Criminal Code, perpetrated against his former spouse, his two daughters and his son; and one count of child neglect and abuse as defined in Article 213 of the Criminal Code, committed against his minor daughter Z.G. According to the indictment, these offences were perpetrated in the period between February 2005 and 3 November 2008. 24.     On 10 February 2009 the Municipal Court ordered a psychiatric assessment of the applicant. 25 .     On 23 February 2009 the applicant submitted an additional written defence. 26.     On 10 March 2009 a psychiatrist submitted a report on the applicant, finding that at the time of the alleged offences his capacity to understand his actions had been reduced, but not significantly. 27 .     On 11 March 2009 the applicant submitted an additional written defence. 28 .     On 17 March 2009 the applicant submitted his written “closing arguments”. 29.     At a hearing held before the Municipal Court on 24 March 2009, the applicant and three witnesses gave evidence. 30 .     On 19 May 2009 the applicant submitted an additional written defence. 31.     Further hearings were held on 2 and 23 June, and on 7 and 14   July 2009. Several witnesses and an expert in psychiatry gave evidence. 32.     On 15 June 2009 the applicant asked the court to allow him to consult the case file. His request was granted. 33 .     By a judgment of 14 July 2009, the Municipal Court found the applicant guilty of one count of child neglect and abuse in respect of his then minor daughter Z.G. and imposed a sentence of ten months’ imprisonment. He was also found guilty of four counts of domestic violence in total in respect of: his daughter Z.G., for which a prison term of six months was imposed; his daughter M.G., for which a prison term of nine months was imposed; his son H.G., for which a prison term of seven months was imposed; and his former spouse Mi.G., for which a prison term of one year was imposed. At the same time his suspended sentence of two years which had been imposed in a previous set of criminal proceedings was revoked (see paragraph 5 above), and he was sentenced cumulatively to five years’ imprisonment. A security measure of compulsory treatment for alcohol addiction was also imposed on him. The relevant part of the judgment read: “The accused, Miljenko Galović, ... is guilty in that in the period between February 2005 and 3 November 2008 in ... , in the flat where he lived in the same household with his daughter Z., a minor, ..., adult daughter M. ... and adult son H., as the common-law spouse of Mi.G., [while] frequently under the influence of alcohol in the presence of Z., a minor, even though he knew that he could put her psycho-physical development at risk, he was verbally and physically assaulting his spouse Mi. and adult children, in that he was calling his common-law spouse ugly names: ‘whore, slut’, and cursing her mother, threatening to kill and sell her, and was physically attacking her by slapping her, pulling her hair and throwing her to the ground, all this in the presence of Z., a minor, and his daughter M. and son H., and [was threatening to] throw his common-law spouse Mi. and the children out of the flat, and threatening to kill them, and on one occasion in December 2007 he took a kitchen knife and put it to the throat of his common-law spouse Mi. and told her that she had to send the agents of the [prosecuting authorities for organised crime] to search for him in bars, and he charged at [his common-law spouse] while brandishing the knife, while he insulted his daughter M. by telling her that she was a ‘whore, slut and a whore from Moslavina’, and to go to her lover, and he also insulted his son H. by telling him that he was ‘an imbecile, an idiot’, and cursed his mother, and said to him ‘give me a blowjob’, and at the same time he pushed H. This caused H. to move out of the flat at the beginning of 2007. [The accused] was frequently telling Z., a minor, that she was a ‘fat pig’, that ‘nobody would fuck her’, and that she was ‘a fat slut’. He grabbed her by the head and pushed her out of the flat, and continued to treat Z. in the same manner when she became an adult ... This behaviour culminated in [the events] on 3   November 2008 when the accused verbally assaulted his common-law spouse Mi. and daughter M. by telling them that they were ‘whores and sluts’, and when his common-law spouse Mi. stayed in the flat with him alone he verbally assaulted her again by telling her that she was a whore and that he had been fired because of her, [and] that he would throw her out of the house and kill her. He then physically assaulted her, in that he grabbed her hair, threw her onto a bed and hit her on the head, and continued to insult her by telling her that she was a ‘stupid whore from Moslavina and Zagorje’. Those blows made her ear bleed, and [the accused] threatened her by saying that if she called the police then he would kill her. When their daughter M. came home on the same day he entered her room and said to her ‘slut, whore, I lost my job because of you, get out of the house’, after which he followed her around the house and continued to insult her. This behaviour caused frequent police interventions and the accused, through his behaviour, put the proper psycho-physical development of his minor daughter Z. at risk. [Z.] is in psychiatric treatment owing to the accused’s behaviour ... while [his behaviour] caused his daughter M., son H. and common-law spouse Mi. to fear for their life and health [and] to experience anxiety [in this respect]. ... In the course of the proceedings, the court inspected ... record of examination of blood alcohol [of 4 November 2008]..., the Zagreb Minor Offences Court judgment [of 4 November 2008] ..., medical documentation concerning Mi.G. [relating to the incident of 3 November 2008]... ... In relation to the criminal offences of domestic violence from Article 215a of the Criminal Code committed against Z.G., M.G., Mi.G and H.G., the court has established that in the incriminating period the [applicant], through his extremely rude, aggressive and ruthless behaviour, put the members of his family in a humiliating position by verbally and physically endangering them, attacking, threatening, which transpires from the statements of all heard witnesses and from the material evidence in the case file. The gravity of the [applicant’s] behaviour is also visible from the fact that [his family members] have been suffering such behaviour since 1995, that his older daughter M.G. said that she thought that [his conduct] had not been punishable as long as he was not beating them, and the fact that the victims called the police only when ‘the water came to their neck’ since they are in permanent fear due to the aggressive behaviour of the [applicant]. Not even a whole series of minor offence convictions, nor a previous criminal conviction for the same criminal offences did not result in a change in the [applicant’s] behaviour, but instead it culminated on 3 November 2008 when Mi.G. left the family home in fear of her own life. ... The [above] prison penalty shall include the period [the applicant] had served on the basis of the Zagreb Minor Offences Court’s decision [of 10 January 2008] between 11   and 16 January 2008 and [on the basis of its decision of 17 November 2008] between 5 November until 2 December 2008 ...” 34.     The first-instance judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer E.H. on 13 August 2009. 35.     The applicant remained in detention. 36 .     On 19 August 2009 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment and asked that a hearing be held. He complained at length about the wrongful assessment of the facts and application of the domestic law in his case. 37.     By a letter of the same date, which was received by the first instance court a day later, the applicant revoked the power of attorney which had been issued to E.H., his lawyer. 38.     On 24 August 2009 the applicant sent a letter to the Municipal Court stating that he needed a new defence lawyer. He submitted a list of eight lawyers and asked to be able to contact them by telephone. This letter was received by the Municipal Court on 25 August 2009. 39.     By another letter of 25 August 2009, the applicant informed the Municipal Court that he had revoked the power of attorney given to E.H. and asked to be allowed to contact four other lawyers by telephone. That letter was received by the Municipal Court on 26 August 2009. The applicant made the same request in a letter of 26 August 2009. 40 .     On 31 August 2009 E.H. lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment on the applicant’s behalf. 41.     On 7 September 2009 the applicant asked for permission to consult part of the case file. 42 .     On 9   September 2009 the President of the Municipal Court appointed S.A. to act as a defence lawyer for the applicant and sent the applicant a copy of the part of the case file which he had requested to consult. 43 .     On 14 September the applicant informed the Municipal Court that he did not trust S.A., and he complained that a request which he had made to contact three lawyers by telephone had not been complied with properly. He explained that he had written to two lawyers and sent letters by registered mail but had not received any confirmation of receipt. As regards the third lawyer, the number on which he had been allowed to call him had been incorrect. 44 .     On 16 September the applicant contacted E.H. again. On the same day D.L., another lawyer, visited the applicant in prison. 45 .     On 23 September 2009 the presiding judge of the trial panel allowed the applicant to contact two lawyers. 46.     On 27 September 2009 the applicant himself lodged an additional appeal against his conviction. 47 .     On 29 September 2009 the applicant contacted a lawyer J.M. 48 .     On 7 October 2009 two lawyers, J.M. and A.D. visited the applicant in prison. 49.     On 23 October 2009 the president of the trial panel of the Municipal Court informed Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu , hereinafter “the County Court”) that the applicant had asked to consult the case file. 50.     The County Court informed only the applicant’s former counsel E.H. of a session scheduled for 2 November 2009 at which the appeal was to be examined. 51 .     By a judgment of 2 November 2009 issued at that session, the County Court examined all appeals lodged both by the applicant and his defence lawyer E.H. It accepted in part their arguments and reduced his sentence to four years and three months’ imprisonment, without holding a hearing and in the absence of the applicant and the lawyers E.H. and S.A. The remainder of the appeals was dismissed, and in that part the first ‑ instance judgment was upheld. 52.     On 19 November 2009 the applicant was taken from the detention facility to prison, where he started to serve his sentence. 53.     The applicant then lodged a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment ( zahtjev za izvanredno preispitivanje pravomoćne presude ) with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ). He argued, inter alia , that he had not been notified of the session at which the County Court had examined his appeal and issued its judgment, even though under the rules of criminal procedure an accused who demanded a hearing before a second-instance court had to be informed of such a session. Only his former counsel E.H. had been notified, even though he had no longer represented him at the time. 54 .     On 20 January 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance judgment and remitted the case. It held that the County Court had breached the rules of criminal procedure by informing the applicant’s former defence lawyer E.H. of the session of 2   November 2009, rather than his current defence lawyer S.A., who had been officially appointed. 55.     On 5 February 2010 the applicant was transferred from prison to a detention facility in Zagreb. On the same day, the decision of the Supreme Court of 20 January 2010 was served on him. 56.     On 9 February 2010 the applicant asked the County Court to be allowed to contact five lawyers by telephone. That request was registered with the County Court on 10 February 2010 and forwarded to the Municipal Court, which received it on 15 February 2015. 57.     In the meantime, on 12 February 2010, the County Court had notified the applicant and his officially appointed defence lawyer S.A. that the session before that court, at which the applicant’s appeal was to be examined, was scheduled for 16   February 2010. 58.     By a letter received by the County Court a day before the session, the applicant asked the court to adjourn the session for a week and to grant him leave to represent himself. He explained that he had been informed of the session only four days in advance, on the afternoon of Friday, 12   February 2010, and thus had not had enough time to prepare his defence or contact anyone. He stressed that while in prison, he had written to three lawyers. At the same time, he asked for leave to represent himself, since he had “participated in the events [in respect of which] he had been charged” and was an administrative lawyer by profession. As regards the lawyer S.A., the applicant said that he did not know him and that he had never talked to him about his case. He reiterated that he had asked to be present at the session in order to give more details about the relevant facts and his former spouse’s motives for allegedly giving false statements and manipulating their children. He also enclosed submissions on the charges against him. 59.     On 16 February 2010 the presiding judge of the trial panel of the Municipal Court allowed the applicant to contact the five lawyers mentioned in his request by telephone. 60.     The session of the County Court was held as scheduled on 16   February 2010. The applicant, who was still in detention at the time, was not invited and his officially appointed defence lawyer S.A. was not present. The competent State Attorney was not present at the session either. 61.     After the session, the County Court issued a judgment identical to its previous judgment of 2 November 2009 – it reduced the applicant’s sentence to four years and three months’ imprisonment and dismissed the remainder of his appeal. The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows: “The presence of the accused – Miljenko Galović, who is in detention and is represented by counsel – at the session before the panel was not secured, because the panel considered that his presence had not been necessary.” 62.     On 17 February 2010 the applicant himself lodged another request for extraordinary review of a final judgment with the Supreme Court, which he supplemented on 30 March and on 18 and 22 April 2010. He argued, inter alia , that: (a) he had been notified of the County Court’s session of 16   February 2010 only four days in advance, and thus had not had enough time to prepare his defence; (b) his officially appointed counsel had never contacted him and had not attended the session; (c) due to time constraints and transfers from prison to a detention facility, he had not had enough time to hire counsel of his own choosing to represent him before the County Court; (d) he had not been invited to the session before the appeal court; and (e) in view of his previous convictions for domestic violence in proceedings on indictment and in several sets of minor-offence proceedings, his criminal conviction in the impugned judgment constituted a second conviction for the same offence. 63.     By a judgment of 27 April 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request. It addressed only the issue of ne bis in idem in connection with the Zagreb Minor Offences Court’s judgment of 17   November 2008 (see paragraph 13 above). The relevant part of the judgment reads: “The factual background of the minor offence of which [the applicant] was found guilty by the judgment of the Minor Offences Court is not the same as the factual background of the criminal offences of which [he] had been found guilty by a final judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court of 14 July 2009 ... Miljenko Galović has been found guilty of one criminal offence under Article 213 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code and four criminal offences under Article 215a of the Criminal Code committed in the period between February 2005 and 3 November 2008. The fact that [his] behaviour also constituted a minor offence under section 18(1) of the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act in respect of the same victims during that same period – [a minor offence] of which he had been found guilty by a judgment of the Minor Offences Court – cannot be seen as a matter which has already been judged, and there has therefore been no violation of the Criminal Code under Article 368 § 3 of the Code on Criminal Procedure.” 64.     By a decision of 27 January 2011, the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declared a subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant inadmissible. It held that the Supreme Court’s decision following a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment was not susceptible to constitutional review. 65.     On 16 March 2012 the applicant was conditionally released from prison. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK DOMESTIC LAW 66.     The relevant domestic law as regards the absence of an accused in criminal proceedings from the sessions of an appeal panel is set out in the case of Arps v. Croatia , no. 23444/12, §§ 12-15, 25 October 2016. 67 .     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette nos. 110/1997 with subsequent amendments), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Neglect or abuse of a child or a minor Article 213 “(1)     A parent, adoptive parent, guardian or other individual who grossly neglects his or her duties to care for or raise a child or minor shall be punished by imprisonment for six months to five years. (2)     The penalty referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be imposed on a parent, adoptive parent, guardian or other individual who abuses a child or minor; [who] forces [the child] to perform work unsuitable for his or her age, or to work excessively, or to beg; [who], out of greed, induces [the child] to behave in a manner harmful to his or her development; or [who] puts [the child] in danger by [engaging in] dangerous activities or in some other way.” Domestic violence Article 215a “A family member who, through violence, ill-treatment or particularly contemptuous behaviour, places another family member in a humiliating position shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years.” 68 .     The Protection against Domestic Violence Act ( Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji , Official Gazette no. 116/2013), inter alia , defines the minor offence of domestic violence and provides sanctions which may be imposed on those convicted of that offence. The relevant provisions read: Section 4 “Domestic violence is: -     every application of physical or psychological force against a person’s integrity; -     all conduct by a family member capable of causing fear of physical or psychological pain; -     causing [a person to] feel scared or personally threatened, or [causing] injury to a person’s dignity; -     physical assault, irrespective of whether it results in bodily injury; -     verbal assaults, insults, swearing, name-calling or other forms of serious harassment; -     sexual harassment; -     stalking and all other forms of harassment; -     unlawfully isolating [a person] or restricting a person’s freedom of movement or communication with third parties; -     damaging or destroying assets or attempting to do this.” Section 18 “(1)     A family member who commits [an act of] domestic violence under section 4 of this Act shall be fined between 1,000 and 10,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) for a minor offence or punished by imprisonment for up to 60 days. (2)     A family member who repeats [an act of] domestic violence shall be fined at least HRK 5,000 for a minor offence or punished by imprisonment for at least 15 days. (3)     An adult family member who commits [an act of] domestic violence in the presence of a child or a minor shall be fined at least HRK 6,000 for a minor offence or punished by imprisonment for at least 30 days. (4)     An adult family member who repeats [an act of] domestic violence under subsection 3 of this section shall be fined at least HRK 7,000 for a minor offence or punished by imprisonment for at least 40 days. (5)     When violence under subsection 3 of this section is committed to the detriment of a child or a minor, the perpetrator shall be fined at least HRK 7,000 for a minor offence or punished by imprisonment of at least 40 days.” 69 .     In its judgment III Kr 50/11-4 of 17 January 2013, the Supreme Court held as follows: “The convicted person is incorrect in claiming that the conditions for instituting criminal proceedings against him had not been met because he had previously been convicted for the same event in minor-offence proceedings... Contrary to what is claimed by the convicted person, it is necessary to stress that he was found guilty of a continuous criminal offence of violent behaviour in the family as defined in Article 215a of the Criminal Code, the acts of which had been performed a number of times in that he verbally attacked the victim, as well as physically in the period between 26 March 2002 and 25 September 2004, so that he would hit her with his hands all over her body and head, push her [so that] she fell over, and she was otherwise disabled and walking with crutches, and two times he hit her with a chair on her head and body. In connection with such incrimination, it is necessary to stress that violent behaviour of the convicted person has been performed throughout the criminalizing period and even outside the three instances in relation to which medical documentation has been obtained. ... ...in relation to the event which represents the very end of the continuous criminal offence and relates to 25 September 2004, medical documentation has been obtained and the convicted person was found guilty of domestic violence in minor-offence proceedings... In the Supreme Court’s opinion, the present case concerns a continuous criminal offence as defined in Article 215a of the Criminal Code, which consists of several instances of domestic violence to which the victim had been exposed almost on a daily basis, thereby putting her in a humiliating position; therefore the K. Minor Offence Court’s judgment relating to the event of 25 September 2004 by no means represents a court decision on the same matter which the criminal courts were called upon to decide in regular criminal proceedings. This is because the minor offence proceedings established the convicted person’s guilt only in relation to one single act of domestic violence committed only on 24 September 2004, whereas the remaining acts [of domestic violence] and the forms [thereof] ... are not even mentioned in the description of the minor offence, so already for that reasons this [case] cannot concern a res judicata , as wrongly argued by the convicted person...” EUROPEAN UNION LAW 70 .     The relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been cited in Bajčić v. Croatia , no. 67334/13, § 15, 8 October 2020. See also CJEU judgment in Joined cases C ‑ 596/16 Enzo di Puma and   C ‑ 597/16 Anotnio Zecca adopted on 20 March 2018. INTERNATIONAL LAW 71 .     The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and   Domestic   Violence (“Istanbul Convention”), which came into force in respect of Croatia on 1 October 2018, insofar as relevant, provides as follows: Article 18 § 1 “Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to protect all victims from any further acts of violence.” Article 45 § 1 “Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the offences established in accordance with this Convention are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, taking into account their seriousness.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (B) AND (C) OF THE CONVENTION 72.     The applicant complained that in the proceedings before the County Court he had not had adequate time for the preparation of his defence, and could not defend himself either in person or with the assistance of a lawyer because he had been informed of the session of 16   February 2010 only four days in advance. Also, he had not been given an opportunity to attend that session. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “1.     In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... 3.     Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (b)     to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c)     to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; ...” Admissibility 73.     The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Article 6 § 3(b) and (c) – legal representation in the appeal proceedings and adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence 74.     The Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §   3 (b) of the Convention is closely related to his complaint concerning his right to be represented by a lawyer at the appeal stage of proceedings. Consequently, the issues of whether his right to adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and his right to be represented by a lawyer were respected need to be examined together. (a)    The parties’ arguments 75.     The applicant argued that, owing to the brevity of the period between his being informed of the appeal session and that session actually taking place, he had not been able to hire a lawyer and adequately prepare his defence. 76.     The Government maintained that the applicant had had sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence in the appeal proceedings, since his chosen lawyer, E.H., had received the first-instance judgment on 13 August 2009 and both the applicant and E.H. had lodged appeals against that judgment. Once the applicant had revoked the power of attorney in respect of E.H., the national courts had appointed a State-funded lawyer for the applicant and had also granted his requests to contact other lawyers. When the Supreme Court had quashed the second-instance judgment and remitted the case to the appeal court, the appeal court had had to decide on the same appeals it had already examined, that is to say the applicant’s and E.H.’s appeals lodged in August 2009. 77.     The national courts had also granted the applicant’s repeated requests to contact other lawyers and had allowed three lawyers to visit him in prison. The applicant was responsible for the fact that he had not hired any other lawyer. 78.     The applicant had been informed of the appeal court’s session four days in advance, and given the fact that the appeal court had had to decide on the appeals lodged in August 2009, that period could not be regarded as insufficient for him to prepare his defence. Moreover, when the applicant had asked for the appeal court’s session to be adjourned for seven days, he had not explained what the purpose of that adjournment was. (b)    The Court’s assessment (i)       General principles 79.     The right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 is an unqualified right. However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule, but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3   others, § 250, 13 September 2016). 80.     Compliance with the requirements of a fair trial must be examined in each case, having regard to the development of the proceedings as a whole, and not on the basis of an isolated consideration of one particular aspect or one particular incident, although it cannot be excluded that a specific factor may be so decisive as to enable the fairness of the trial to be assessed at an earlier stage in the proceedings. In evaluating the overall fairness of the proceedings, the Court will take into account, if appropriate, the minimum rights listed in Article 6 § 3, which exemplify the requirements of a fair trial in respect of typical procedural situations which arise in criminal cases. They can therefore be viewed as specific aspects of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in Article 6 § 1. However, those minimum rights are not aims in themselves: their intrinsic aim is always to contribute to ensuring the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole (ibid., §   251). 81.     Article 6 § 3 ( b) guarantees the accused “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”, and therefore implies that the substantive defence activity on his behalf may comprise everything which is “necessary” to prepare the main trial. The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the ability to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Mayzit v. Russia , no. 63378/00, § 78, 20 January 2005; Moiseyev v. Russia , no.   62936/00, § 220, 9 October 2008; Gregačević v. Croatia , no. 58331/09, §   51, 10 July 2012; and Chorniy v. Ukraine , no. 35227/06, § 37, 16 May 2013). 82.     When assessing whether the accused had adequate time for the preparation of his defence, particular regard has to be had to the nature of the proceedings, as well as the complexity of the case and the stage of the proceedings (see Gregačević , cited above, § 51, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium , 10 February 1983, § 41, Series A no. 58). In this connection, the Court notes that the guarantees of Article 6 § 3 (b) go beyond trials, and extend to all stages of court proceedings (see D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria , no. 29476/06, § 81, 24 July 2012, and Chorniy , cited above, §   38). 83.     As regards the right to a lawyer, the Court reiterates that the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (c), is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 51, ECHR 2008; Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/1