CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 }   Communicated on 15 September 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46657/15 Tomo ĆAĆIĆ against Croatia lodged on 14 September 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Tomo Ćaćić, is a national of both Croatia and Serbia who was born in 1947 and lives in Belgrade. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ð. Dozet, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 26 May 1993 the Gospić County State Attorney’s Office ( Okružno državno odvjetništvo u Gospiću ) indicted the applicant and fourteen other persons before the Gospić County Court ( Okružni sud u Gospiću ) on charges of war crimes against the civilian population. On 12 July 1993 the Gospić County Court ordered that the applicant, together with thirteen of the other accused, be tried in absentia as they were not available to the Croatian authorities. During the proceedings the applicant and the other accused were represented by a legal aid lawyer. On 21 July 1993 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s legal aid lawyer lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) challenging the sentence imposed. On 24 February 1994 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant’s conviction thus became final. On 25 January 2010 the applicant asked the Gospić County Court to reopen the proceedings on the grounds that he had learned about the final judgment of 21 July 1993 only on 12 March 2009 and that he had not committed the crime in issue. He asked that a number of witnesses be heard on his behalf. He also contended that during the proceedings conducted in his absence he had not been effectively represented. On 15 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court ( Županijski sud u Rijeci ) refused the applicant’s request on the grounds that the proposed evidence could not have led to his acquittal. It also refused to apply the relevant domestic provision granting an automatic reopening of proceedings conducted in absentia on the grounds that the applicant lived in Serbia and was not available to the Croatian authorities. The applicant then lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the proposed evidence alone and in relation to the previous evidence indicated his innocence of the crime of which he had been convicted and that during the proceedings conducted in his absence he had not been effectively represented. On 23 September 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded and upheld the decision of the Rijeka County Court. The applicant then lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), arguing that he had not been able to obtain a retrial and that during the proceedings conducted in his absence he had not been effectively represented. On 19 February 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that it concerned proceedings for the reopening of the criminal proceedings and not any criminal charge against the applicant. This decision was served on the applicant on 25 March 2015. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he was not able to obtain a rehearing after his conviction in absentia , and that he was not effectively represented by a legal aid lawyer during the proceedings conducted in his absence.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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)?   2.     Was the applicant defended through effective legal assistance during the proceedings conducted in his absence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.