CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 2023

.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 20 March 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43427/22 Ognjen GRUBIĆ against Croatia lodged on 6 September 2022 communicated on 3 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of his detention which was ordered in relation to the reopened criminal proceedings against him. In 2010 the applicant was finally convicted for robbery and aggravated murder and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. After the Court had found that violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention had occurred in the course of the second-instance and third-instance proceedings (see Grubić v. Croatia [Committee], no. 33602/17, §§ 65 and 72, 18 March 2021), in 2022 the domestic courts allowed their reopening. The proceedings were returned to the stage of the appeal against the first-instance judgment. The courts further terminated the applicant’s serving of his prison sentence and placed him in detention until the (possible) finality of his conviction. They relied on Article 123 § 2 of the Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 2020, which provides that, if the first-instance judgment imposed five or more years of imprisonment, detention must be ordered regardless of its maximum statutory period. The applicant complains, relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, about the unlawfulness of his detention. He submits that pursuant to Article 574 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the amended Article 123 § 2 was not applicable in his case, and that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons to the contrary. Furthermore, the maximum statutory period of pre-trial detention had expired in his case before the proceedings were reopened, and before the amended Article   123 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force. He lastly complains that his detention was ordered after he had already served more than half of the prison sentence imposed in the first-instance judgment and without the domestic courts examining the existence of the risk of flight or any other reason justifying it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the provision relied on by the domestic courts when ordering the applicant’s detention following the reopening of the proceedings, was the applicant’s detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and “lawful”, as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? The parties are invited to submit to the Court references to the relevant domestic provisions and judicial practice, where available.   2.     Having regard to the lapse of time following the applicant’s conviction by the first-instance court in 2009, the fact that he served more than half of the prison sentenced imposed and the circumstance that the domestic courts allegedly did not examine the existence of the risk of flight or any other reason justifying the applicant’s detention following the reopening of the proceedings, is the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?