CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 April 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 1337/22 Mario BERIŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 23 December 2021 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In August 2020 the applicant was arrested and then detained on remand. In December 2020 he was indicted on charges of fraud. The prosecutor asked for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention based on the risk of absconding. The applicant asked to be allowed to start serving the prison sentence imposed on him in another set of proceedings, submitting that in that case there would be no danger of absconding and thus no need to extend his pre-trial detention. The domestic courts extended his pre-trial detention deeming that such detention had priority over serving the prison sentence. The applicant complains, relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, that the domestic authorities’ decisions extending his pre-trial detention were arbitrary and unjustified in the circumstances where the danger of absconding could have been prevented by allowing him to serve his prison sentence.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention in compliance with Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Boicenco v.   Moldova , no. 41088/05, §§ 139-145, 11 July 2006; Ladent v. Poland , no.   11036/03, §§ 55-58, 18 March 2008, and Rubtsov and Balayan v. Russia , nos. 33707/14 and 3762/15, §§ 34-37, 10 April 2018)?