CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 January 2022   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 24406/21 and 27577/21 Mladen MLINAREVIĆ against Croatia and Ivo SANADER against Croatia lodged on 23 April and 18 May 2021 respectively Communicated on 14 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern criminal proceedings against the applicants and other persons and companies on charges of abuse of power and authority which attracted great media attention. The applicants were convicted and Mr   Mlinarević (applicant in application no. 24406/21) was sentenced to community service and Mr Sanader (applicant in application no. 27577/21), the former Prime Minister of Croatia, was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants challenge the impartiality of the Constitutional Court, deciding their case by a joined decision, on account of the participation of Judge R.M. Mr Mlinarević complains that, after Judge R.M. had been appointed to the Constitutional Court, his former law office had been taken over by the attorneys representing two other co-accused in the proceedings. He alleges that it had not been in the interest of those co-accused that he be acquitted since, on the basis of their conviction, they were all jointly responsible to pay the damages. He also submits that Judge R.M.’s son is employed in that law office. Mr Sanader complains that Judge R.M. had previously been the defence lawyer of one of his co-defendants in another set of criminal proceedings against him. That co-defendant’s confession had been used as decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction in those proceedings and, although that judgment was eventually quashed and the case remitted, in his concluding speech as an attorney for the co-defendant, Judge R.M. clearly accused the applicant of having coming the crime in question. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the involvement of Judge R.M., was the Constitutional Court impartial when it decided on the applicants’ constitutional complaints, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Mežnarić   v. Croatia , no.   1615/01, 15 July 2005, and Croatian Golf Federation v. Croatia , no.   66994/14, 17 December 2020)?