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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8A38D3D2 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:5.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .s51E1D128 { width:29.18pt; display:inline-block } .s8DF4C81A { width:23.06pt; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 30 January 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no 19120/15 Tomislav SERAŽIN against Croatia and 5 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all represented before the Court by Mr D. Karačić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Seražin v. Croatia, no. 19120/15 By a judgment of the Zagreb Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Zagrebu ) of 9 August 2012, the applicant was found guilty of sport hooliganism related to disorder that he had caused during a football match on 8 August 2012. He was sentenced under the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act ( Zakon o sprječavanju nereda na športskim natjecanjima ) to a twenty-five days’ suspended prison sentence. In addition, the protective measure ( zaštitna mjera ) of prohibition on attending the matches of the “Dinamo” Zagreb football club and all matches taking place in the Maksimir football stadium for a period of one year. On 3 April 2014 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the relevant police department, applied in respect of the applicant the preventive measure ( preventivna mjera ) under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act according to which the competent Minor Offences Court could, on the basis of any available information about the disorderly conduct of an individual during sports events, prohibit him or her from attending sports competitions for a period of six months to a year. The Zagreb Minor Offences Court thereby relied on the findings in its judgment of 9 August 2012 concerning the applicant’s disorderly conduct. In the context of the imposed preventive measure the Zagreb Minor Offences Court prohibited the applicant from attending all football matches of the “Dinamo” Zagreb football club and the national football team, in Croatia and abroad, for one year. It also ordered the applicant to report to a police station two hours before every relevant football match and to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and for two hours after it ended. He was also ordered to give his travel documents to the police seven days before every relevant sports competition. The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court ( Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske ). He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the preventive measure against him for the same conduct for which he had already been found guilty and sentenced amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 24 April 2014 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act was not a penalty imposed against the applicant but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct. The applicant challenged this decision before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), reiterating his arguments of a breach of the ne bis in idem principle, and on 21 October 2014 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible on the grounds that it was not an individual act against which a constitutional complaint could be lodged. On 7 August 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court again imposed the same preventive measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act in respect of the applicant. It took into account his disorderly conduct of 8 August 2012 (see above) and several other events at which he had been arrested and prosecuted for sport hooliganism. The applicant appealed to the High Minor Offences Court alleging a breach of the ne bis in idem principle, and on 24 September 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed his appeal, reiterating the arguments from its previous decision. 2.     Mesić v. Croatia, no. 792/16 By a judgment of the Zagreb Minor Offences Court of an unspecified date, the applicant was found guilty of sport hooliganism related to disorder that he had caused during a football match on 21 February 2014. He was sentenced under the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act to a ten days’ suspended prison sentence. On 20 July 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the relevant police department, applied in respect of the applicant the preventive measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act. The Zagreb Minor Offences Court thereby relied on the findings in its judgment concerning the applicant’s disorderly conduct on 21 February 2014. In the context of the imposed preventive measure the Zagreb Minor Offences Court prohibited the applicant from attending all football matches of the “Dinamo” Zagreb football club and the national football team, in Croatia and abroad, for one year. It also ordered the applicant to report to a police station two hours before every relevant football match and to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and for two hours after it ended. The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the preventive measure against him for the same conduct for which he had already been found guilty and sentenced amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 7 September 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act was not a penalty imposed against the applicant but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct. 3.     Zečević v. Croatia, no. 5677/16 By a judgment of the relevant Minor Offences Court of an unspecified date, the applicant was acquitted on charges of sport hooliganism during football matches on 1 May 2010, and 10 March and 10 August 2013. On 9 July 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the relevant police department, applied in respect of the applicant the preventive measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act. The Zagreb Minor Offences Court thereby relied on the fact that the applicant had been prosecuted for sport hooliganism with regard to his disorderly conduct at the football matches on 1 May 2010, and 10 March and 10 August 2013. In the context of the imposed preventive measure the Zagreb Minor Offences Court prohibited the applicant from attending all football matches of the “Dinamo” Zagreb football club and the national football team, in Croatia and abroad, for one year. It also ordered the applicant to report to a police station two hours before every relevant football match and to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and for two hours after it ended. The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the preventive measure against him for the same conduct for which he had already been prosecuted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 24 September 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act was not a penalty imposed against the applicant but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct which could be applied on the basis of any information suggesting such conduct. 4.     Jurić v. Croatia, no. 21599/16 By a judgment of the relevant Minor Offences Court of an unspecified date, the applicant was convicted on charges of sport hooliganism during a football match on 18 December 2013. On that occasion the protective measure of prohibition on attending competitions was applied in respect of him. On 8 September 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the relevant police department, applied in respect of the applicant the preventive measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act. The Zagreb Minor Offences Court thereby relied on the fact that the applicant had been convicted for sport hooliganism with regard to his disorderly conduct at the football match on 18 December 2013. In the context of the imposed preventive measure the Zagreb Minor Offences Court prohibited the applicant from attending all football matches of the “Dinamo” Zagreb football club and the national football team, in Croatia and abroad, for one year. It also ordered the applicant to report to a police station two hours before every relevant football match and to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and for two hours after it ended. The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the preventive measure against him for the same conduct for which he had already been convicted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 7 October 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act was not a penalty imposed against the applicant but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct. The decision of the High Minor Offences Court was served on the applicant on an unspecified date in 2016. 5.     Vrhovski v. Croatia, no. 27292/16 By a judgment of the relevant Minor Offences Court of an unspecified date, the applicant was acquitted on charges of sport hooliganism during a football match on 15 August 2012. On 20 July 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the relevant police department, applied in respect of the applicant the preventive measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act. The Zagreb Minor Offences Court thereby relied on the fact that the applicant had been prosecuted for sport hooliganism with regard to his disorderly conduct at the football match on 15 August 2012. In the context of the imposed preventive measure the Zagreb Minor Offences Court prohibited the applicant from attending all football matches of the “Dinamo” Zagreb football club and the national football team, in Croatia and abroad, for one year. It also ordered the applicant to report to a police station two hours before every relevant football match and to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and two hours after it ended. The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the preventive measure against him for the same conduct for which he had already been prosecuted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 22 December 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act was not a penalty imposed against the applicant but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct which could be applied on the basis of any information suggesting such conduct. 6.     Jeđud v. Croatia, no. 38450/16 By a judgment of the Koprivnica Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Koprivnici ) of 13 November 2014, charges of sport hooliganism were dismissed against the applicant relating to an incident at a football match on 20 March 2010. On 31 December 2013 the Virovitica Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Virovitici ) found the applicant and several other individuals guilty of being in an intoxicated condition at a football match on 25 September 2013, contrary to the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act. On 9 September 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the relevant police department, applied in respect of the applicant the preventive measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act. The Zagreb Minor Offences Court thereby relied on the fact that the applicant had been prosecuted for sport hooliganism with regard to his disorderly conduct at the football matches on 20 March 2010 and 25 September 2013. In the context of the imposed preventive measure the Zagreb Minor Offences Court prohibited the applicant from attending all football matches of the “Dinamo” Zagreb football club and the national football team, in Croatia and abroad, for one year. It also ordered the applicant to report to a police station two hours before every relevant football match and to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and two hours after it ended. The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the preventive measure against him for the same conduct for which he had already been prosecuted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 22 December 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 34a (1) of the Prevention of Disorder on Sport Competitions Act was not a penalty imposed against the applicant but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct which could be applied on the basis of any information suggesting such conduct. The applicant challenged this decision before the Constitutional Court, reiterating his arguments of a breach of the ne bis in idem principle, and on 30 March 2016 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible on the grounds that it was not an individual act against which a constitutional complaint could be lodged. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, that they were tried and/or punished twice for the same conduct, first in the minor offences proceedings concerning the charges of sport hooliganism and then in the proceedings concerning the application of the preventive measures prohibiting them from attending sports events and obliging them to report to a police station during sport competitions.     QUESTIONS Have the applicants been tried and punished twice for the same offence by the relevant domestic courts, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol   No. 7?   In particular, did the subsequent imposition of the preventive measure for sport hooliganism amount to the determination of a “criminal charge” against them, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see, for instance, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 53, ECHR 2009)?   If so, did the subsequent application of the preventive measure amounted to a duplication of trial or punishment ( bis ) as proscribed by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see A and B v. Norway [GC], no. 24130/11, 15 November 2016)?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicants’ cases.     APPENDIX List of applications   19120/15   Seražin v. Croatia   792/16   Mesić v. Croatia   5677/16   Zečević v. Croatia 21599/16   Jurić v. Croatia 27292/16   Vrhovski v. Croatia 38450/16   Jeđud v. Croatia