CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2263FE47 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 October 2016   THIRD SECTION Applications nos 27929/10 and 52120/13 Sveto PURIĆ against Serbia and R.B. against Serbia lodged on 6 May 2010 and 17 June 2013 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant in case no. 27929/10, Mr Sveto Purić, (“the first applicant”) is a Serbian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Kragujevac. He is represented before the Court by Mr Rodoljub Stepanović, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. 2.     The applicant in case no. 52120/13, Mr R.B., (“the second applicant”) is a Serbian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a sentence at X District Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr   V.   Juhas Đurić, a lawyer practising in Subotica.   A.     The circumstances of case no. 27929/10 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the first applicant, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 22 February 2007 the investigating judge ( istražni sudija ) of the Smederevo District Court ( Okružni sud u Smederevu ) ordered the first applicant’s detention on suspicion of bribery and the illegal possession of weapons and explosive materials. The period of detention was to be calculated from 20 February 2007, when he had been arrested. The first applicant’s detention was ordered on the following grounds: (a) the risk he would obstruct the course of justice by exerting pressure on witnesses and his co-accused and (b) the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crime. 5.     The first applicant’s detention was extended until 17 August 2007 when the indictment was brought against him. He was accused of bribery, abuse of office and the falsification of official documents. 6.     On 11 September, 17 September, 17 October and 16 November 2007 the Smederevo District Court, without going into the details, extended the the first applicant’s pre-trial detention, based only on the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crimes. In its reasoning the Court justified the continuation of the detention, inter alia , by reference to the aggravating circumstances of the crimes in question, such as the fact that the criminal conduct had taken place over a prolonged period of time and that the applicant had been a professor and subsequently the dean of the Faculty of Law while committing the crimes. The applicant repeatedly challenged his detention. 7.     On 14 December 2007 the first applicant was released from custody. 8.     On 5 January 2008 the first applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court. 9.     On 22 December 2009 the Constitutional Court examined, among other things, whether the ground for his pre-trial detention had satisfied the requirements of the constitutional right which is equivalent to Article 5 of the Convention. The court decided that it had done. 10.     It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending. B.     The circumstances of case no. 52120/13 11.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the second applicant, may be summarised as follows. 12.     On 3 November 2011 the investigating judge of the X High Court ordered the second applicant’s detention on suspicion of sexually abusing a child. The period of detention was to be calculated from 1 November 2011, when he had been arrested. The second applicant’s detention was ordered on the following grounds: (a) the risk he would obstruct the course of justice by exerting pressure on witnesses and his co-accused; (b) the risk of reoffending; and (c) the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crime. 13.     On 20 March 2012 the public prosecutor issued an indictment against the second applicant. 14.     On the 15 June 2012 the X High Court extended the second applicant’s detention for a further two months based solely on the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crime. In its reasoning the Court justified the continuation of the detention, inter alia , by referring to the aggravated circumstances of the crime in question, such as the age of the victim, the fact that the criminal conduct had taken place over a prolonged period of time, that the second applicant had made use of the fact that he had lived in the same household as the victim and had allegedly also made constant threats against the victim. On 22 June 2012 the X Appeals Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 15.     On 17 August 2012 the X High Court found the second applicant guilty of child sexual abuse and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. 16.     On 2 July 2012 the second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. 17.     On 23 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal. In its reasoning the Constitutional Court held that the domestic courts had provided relevant and sufficient grounds to justify the need to continue his pre-trial detention. C.     Relevant domestic law The Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o krivičnom postupku, published in the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no. 70/01, amendments published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 68/02 and in OG RS nos. 58/04, 85/05, 115/05, 49/07, 20/09, 72/09 and 76/10) 18.     Article 142 § 1 (5) provides that a person may be remanded in custody on reasonable suspicion of a crime if the potential sentence is imprisonment of more than ten years and if justified by the aggravating circumstances of the crime in question ( ako je to opravdano zbog posebno teških okolnosti krivičnog dela ). Up until September 2009, which is when the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure published in OG RS 72/09 entered into force, Article 142 § 2 (5) provided that a person could be remanded in custody on reasonable suspicion of a crime if the potential sentence was imprisonment of more than ten years and if justified by the way the crime had been perpetrated or by other aggravating circumstances related to the crime ( ako je to opravdano zbog načina izvršenja ili drugih posebno teških okolnosti krivičnog dela ). COMPLAINT The applicants essentially complain under Article 5 of the Convention that the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the alleged crime could not of themselves justify the extension of the first applicant’s pre-trial detention from 17 August 2007 to14 December 2007 and of the second applicant’s detention from 18 June 2012 to 17 August 2012. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES As regards both applicants   Was the extension of the first applicant’s pre-trial detention from 17   August 2007 to 14 December 2007 and the extension of the second applicant’s pre-trial detention from 18 June 2012 to 17 August 2012 in accordance with the requirements set in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular were the relevant decisions sufficiently reasoned? (see Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia , no. 3363/08, § 97, 7 January 2014)?