CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2017

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 30 January 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28571/16 Ivica MIRIĆ against Croatia lodged on 17 May 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ivica Mirić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Sisak. He is represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Rupčić, a lawyer practising in Sisak. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 1 April 2009 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Sisku ) indicted the applicant before the Sisak County Court on charges of committing war crimes. By a judgment of 26 August 2009 the Sisak County Court ( Županijski sud u Sisku ) found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 30 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court. On 13 April 2010 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) allowed his appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial. In the fresh proceedings, by a judgment of 10 June 2010 the Sisak County Court again found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant again appealed. On 7 December 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. On 25 January 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. By a decision of 19 November 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint and on 4 December 2015 it served the decision on his representative. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the time taken for the above-mentioned criminal proceedings exceeded what can be considered reasonable.           QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case, in the part before the Constitutional Court, breach the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?