CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 9 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45646/14 Damir HANDANOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 17 June 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Damir Handanović, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Osijek. He is represented before the Court by Mr   D. Srb, a lawyer practising in Osijek. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was arrested in July 2013 in connection with a suspicion of organising international prostitution and incitement to murder. During the investigation he was detained on the grounds of risk of collusion and risk of reoffending (Article 123 § 1 (2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). On 4 October 2013 an investigating judge of the Osijek County Court ( Županijski sud u Osijeku ) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 7 January 2014. The applicant appealed and on 16 October 2013 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, upholding the decision of the investigating judge. On 3 January 2014 the competent State Attorney’s Office indicted the applicant in the Osijek County Court on charges of incitement to aggravated murder and international prostitution. It also requested that the applicant be remanded in custody pending the trial. On 7 January 2014 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending (Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The applicant appealed against this decision before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) arguing that the Osijek County Court had been obliged, under Article 131 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to examine and to extend or revoke his pre-trial detention within the period of forty-eight hours following the submission of the indictment by the State Attorney’s Office. As this period had expired on 5 January 2014, he considered that his detention had been unlawful. On 24 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the time-period of forty-eight hours should not be strictly interpreted. It explained that there was a small and neglectful overdue which could not influence the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reiterating his arguments before the Supreme Court, and indicating, in particular, that there was no basis in the relevant domestic law to consider that the time-period of forty-eight hours should not be strictly interpreted and that the overdue at issue could not be considered neglectful. On 17 February 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded on the grounds that the period of forty-eight hours at issue first fell on Sunday and was therefore postponed to Monday, which was a public holiday, so the detention was eventually examined and extended the next day on 7 January 2014. It also noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been extended by the investigating judge until 7 January 2014. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Relevant domestic law The relevant provisions 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; 56/2013 and 145/2013) provide: Article 90 “(1) The time-limits shall be calculated in hours, days, months and years. ... (6) If the last day of the time-limit falls on a state holiday or on Saturday or Sunday, or any other day when the state authority does not work, the term shall expire with the lapse of the first following working day.” Article 131 “(1) If at the moment of the submission of the indictment before the court the defendant is in the pre-trial detention, a [three-judge panel] shall immediately, and no longer than forty-eight hours from the moment when the indictment was submitted, hold a hearing under Article 129 of this Code and decide about the pre-trial detention by extending or revoking it. ...” 2.     Relevant domestic practice The Supreme Court in its decision no. Kž 473/1998-3 of 12 October 1998 held that the time-limit set out in hours in the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be extended to the next day in case it fell on the day when the state authority was not working, as that possibility was open to the time-limits set out in days. In the decision no. U-III-939/1998 of 3 February 1999 the Constitutional Court held that the time-limits set out in days in the Code of Criminal Procedure should be clearly distinguished from the time-limits set out in days; in that the forty-eight hours could not be calculated as two days. Accordingly, the provision on the postponement of the time-limit to the next day, in case the state authority is not working on the day on which the time-limit elapses, could only be applicable to the time-limits set out in days, months and years. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that he was unlawfully detained in the period between 5 January and 7 January 2014 in that his pre-trial detention was not extended within the time-limits established by law.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, did the manner in which the applicant’s detention was extended by a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court comply with the requirement of lawfulness; namely, the relevant domestic law and the case-law of the domestic courts?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents related to the applicant’s case.