CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 }     Communicated on 8 September 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30373/13 Josip MRAOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 10 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Josip Mraović, is a Croatian national who was born in   1948 and lives in Gospić. He is represented before the Court by Ms   V.   Drenški Lasan, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 April 2005 K.M.J., a basketball player in the Gospić Women’s Basketball Club, reported to the police that the applicant had sexually assaulted her. The applicant was arrested on the same day on suspicion of rape. On 15 April 2005 the local police department gave a detailed statement to the media concerning the incident, in which they disclosed the personal details and identity of the victim. This subsequently gave rise to an action by K.M.J. for damages against the State. On 30 June 2005 the applicant was indicted in the Gospić County Court ( Županijski sud u Gospiću ) on charges of rape. The proceedings before the Gospić County Court were closed to the public, in order to protect the private life of both the victim and the accused. On 1 December 2005 the Gospić County Court acquitted the applicant, but the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) quashed the judgment and remitted the case for retrial upon an appeal by the relevant State Attorney’s Office. In the resumed proceedings, the case was transferred to the Rijeka County Court ( Županijski sud u Rijeci ). At a hearing on 13 September 2007, the applicant requested that the proceedings be heard in open court. He argued that representatives of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) had been present at the hearing before the Supreme Court, and that the victim had given numerous statements to the media concerning the case. He therefore considered that the proceedings should be heard in open court so that people could obtain an independent picture of the case. The trial court dismissed the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be heard in open court, on the grounds that it was necessary to protect the victim’s private life. At a hearing on 3 December 2007 the applicant reiterated his request for the proceedings to be heard in open court. He pointed out that, in the meantime, K.M.J. had given four interviews to the media in which she had provided various details about her private life and the incident in issue. In particular, K.M.J. had given an interview on 8 January 2006 to Jutarnji list (a daily newspaper with national circulation) in which she had disclosed details about her private life and part of the statement which she had given to the investigating judge. The trial court dismissed the applicant’s request as ill-founded. At a hearing on 4 December 2007, K.M.J. gave evidence before the trial court. On 5 December 2007 a daily newspaper with national circulation ( Novi list ) published an article in which K.M.J. and her lawyer gave statements about her examination as a witness on 4 December 2007. On 21 January 2008 the applicant complained to the trial court about K.M.J.’s breach of confidentiality with regard to the proceedings. Meanwhile, on 13 November 2007 the newspaper Jutarnji list published another exclusive interview with K.M.J. about the manner in which the case had affected her private life. On 7 February 2008 the Rijeka County Court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The delivery of the judgment was public and was covered by the national television channel (HRT), as well as two private television channels with national coverage (RTL and Nova TV). The applicant challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ), complaining, inter alia , that the proceedings had been unjustifiably closed to the public. On 8 June 2009 the Supreme Court, following a hearing which was closed to the public, dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld his conviction, sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that, in view of the nature of the charges against the applicant, the exclusion of the public from the case had been justified. The applicant then challenged these findings before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), and on 8 November 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed his constitutional complaint as ill-founded, endorsing the judgment of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 22 November 2012. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the exclusion of the public from the criminal proceedings against him in relation to the charges of rape.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.