CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 9 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51249/11 Stevan ORAVEC against Croatia lodged on 30 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Stevan Oravec, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Osijek. He is represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Omrčen, 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. On 27 April 2011 the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion of drug trafficking. The next day an investigating judge of the Osijek County Court ( Županijski sud u Osijeku ) ordered his pre-trial detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending (Article 102 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). On 24 May 2011 the investigating judge found that due to a certain factual change of circumstances in the proceedings the applicant’s should be released. He thus ordered the applicant’s release with an immediate effect. The competent State Attorney’s Office appealed the decision of the investigating judge and on 26 May 2011 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court quashed the first-instance decision and ordered the investigating judge to re-examine the case. On 31 May 2011 the investigating judge reiterated his previous decision. The State Attorney’s Office again challenged this decision before a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court. On 10 June 2011, in a closed session in the absence of the parties, a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court reversed the investigating judge’s decision and ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending (Article 102 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The decision did not set out the time-limits for detention. The applicant challenged this decision before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 15 July 2011 the Constitutional Court declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that meanwhile, on 8 July 2011, a fresh decision extending his detention had been adopted. In the meantime, the applicant also challenged the decision of a three-judge panel the Osijek County Court of 10 June 2011 by an appeal before the higher criminal courts but the appeal was declared inadmissible on the grounds that the decision at issue was not susceptible to a further appeal. On 15 July 2011 the Constitutional Court, by a separate ruling, upheld this decision. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002, 143/2002 and 62/2003) provides: Decision on pre-trial detention Article 103 “(1) The pre-trial detention shall be ordered and extended by a written court decision. (2) A decision on the pre-trial detention shall provide:... time-limits of detention ...” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention, that the alleged unlawfulness and procedural defects in the proceedings concerning his detention on remand.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the decision on his pre-trial detention of 10   June 2011 comply with the requirement of lawfulness under Article 5 §   1   (c) of the Convention, since there were no time-limits set as regards the period of the applicant’s detention?   2.     Did the applicant have the relevant procedural guarantees at his disposal during the procedure for ordering his pre-trial detention by a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court, as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Lebedev v. Russia , no. 4493/04, §§ 76-77, 25 October 2007)?   3.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention before the Constitutional Court in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents entire case file from the domestic proceedings.