CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2016

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 1 September 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56510/15 Marinko POZDER against Croatia lodged on 10 November 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Marinko Pozder, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Kašić. He is represented before the Court by Mr   L.   Šušak, 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 18 November 1991, during the armed conflicts between the Serb paramilitary forces and the Yugoslav People’s Army on the one side and the Croatian Armed Forces on the other, the killing of civilians occurred in Škabrnja. On 15 July 1993 the applicant, who was a member of the Serb paramilitary forces, was captured by the Croatian authorities. On 7   October   1993 the applicant was interrogated during the investigative procedures with respect to the events in Škabrnja. After his release on 17   December 1993 the applicant became unavailable to the Croatian authorities. On 27 November 1995 the Zadar County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zadru ) indicted the applicant in the Zadar County Court ( Županijski sud u Zadru ) on charges of war crimes against the civilian population with respect to the events in Škabrnja. On 28 November 1995 the Zadar County Court ordered that the applicant be tried in absentia as he was not available to the Croatian authorities. He was tried together with seventeen other persons. During the proceedings the applicant was represented by a legal aid lawyer, J.P. On 11 December 1995 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s legal aid lawyer did not lodge an appeal against the Zadar County Court’s judgment. On 16 June 1998 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the appeal of the other co-accused as ill-founded and upheld the Zadar County Court’s judgment. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, acting as the third-level appeal court, on 7 November 2001. By submissions of 6 June and 2 July 2012 the applicant asked the Zadar County Court to reopen the proceedings on the grounds that he was never served with the indictment. In his request the applicant contended that in a retrial against one of his co-accused new facts had been established which suggested his innocence as regards the crime of which he had been convicted. He also endorsed findings of the domestic courts from various other proceedings against different individuals, alleging that they would lead to his acquittal. On 26 June 2013 a three-judge panel of the Zadar County Court dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that there were no grounds for allowing a retrial. It stressed that the applicant’s arguments did not represent new facts or evidence which, alone and in relation to the previous evidence, could have led to his acquittal. It also considered, due to the fact that the applicant was not present in Croatia, that the proceedings could not be reopened as there was no possibility of holding a trial in his presence. The applicant then lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that that he had not had a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, and that the newly disclosed facts could have led to his acquittal. On 21 January 2015 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded and upheld the decision of the Zadar County Court. The applicant then lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), arguing that he had not had a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, and that he had not been able to obtain a retrial. On 28 April 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the constitutional complaint concerned the proceedings for the reopening of the criminal proceedings and not any criminal charge against the applicant. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 12 May 2015. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he was not able to obtain a rehearing after his conviction in absentia.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was he able to take part in the hearing and to obtain a new trial (see Sanader v. Croatia , no. 66408/12, § 75-96, 12   February 2015)?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.