CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 9 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 33797/17 and 37679/17 Dubravko GLAVAŠIĆ against Croatia and Željko TANKOSIĆ against Croatia lodged on 28 April 2017 and 17 May 2017 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The first applicant was a policeman and the second applicant a custom officer working on the same border crossing. On 9 June 2014 the Osijek County Court found the applicants guilty on charges of aiding and abetting the abuse of power and authority in the exercise of the custom control with an aim of obtaining a pecuniary gain for a legal person (company B). The offences were found to be committed in the period between September and November 1997 (when the 1993 Criminal Code was applicable). The Osijek County Court qualified these offences under the 1997 Criminal Code (which came into force on 1 January 1998) on the grounds that it was more lenient to the applicants. The applicants challenged this judgment, first before the Supreme Court and then before the Constitutional Court, arguing that in fact the 1993 Criminal Code had been more lenient. They also stressed that according to the Supreme Court’s case-law applicable at the relevant time (which they identified when referring to it), the abuse of power and authority could not be committed with an aim of obtaining a pecuniary gain for a legal person but only for a physical person. When examining the applicants’ complaints, the Supreme Court eventually applied the new 2011 Criminal Code considering that it provided for a more lenient penalty for the offence in question. It provided no reasoning as to the applicants’ complaint that at the time of the commission of the offence the abuse of power and authority could not have been committed by acting with an aim to obtain a pecuniary gain for a legal person. The Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ complaints manifestly ill-founded using the standardised reasoning. The applicants complain, under Article 7 of the Convention, of unforeseeable application of criminal law to their detriment.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicants’ conviction under the 2011 Criminal Code of an offence of aiding and abetting the abuse of power and authority with an aim of obtaining a pecuniary gain for a legal person (company B.), committed in the period between September and November 1997, run counter to the principle of legality under Article 7 of the Convention (see, for instance, Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, §§ 50-53, ECHR 2015)?   APPENDIX     Application no. 33797/17   1.     Dubravko GLAVAŠIĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Ladimirevci and is represented by Mr D. Krtić, a lawyer practising in Osijek.   Application no. 37679/17   2.     Željko TANKOSIĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1968, lives in Osijek and is represented by Mr D. Krtić, a lawyer practising in Osijek.