CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 2025

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13651/23 Darko KRUŠLIN against Croatia lodged on 23 March 2023 communicated on 10 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, a former judge of the Osijek County Court, who was dismissed from office. Background to the case The applicant acted as president of the trial panel in the criminal proceedings against Zoran and Zdravko Mamić – brothers who occupied key management positions in Dinamo Zagreb Football Club, and two other persons, including D.V. (see Mamić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), nos.   21714/22 et al., § 11, 9 July 2024). On 6 June 2018 the defendants were sentenced to imprisonment. One day before the trial court’s judgment was pronounced, Zdravko Mamić left Croatia and thereafter remained unavailable for the Croatian authorities. After the appellate court’s judgment in the proceedings was given, the applicant and two other judges were arrested following accusations by Zdravko Mamić that he had given them bribes in exchange for delivering a favourable decision in the trial. On 7 June 2023 the applicant was indicted for receiving a bribe. Specifically, he was charged for socialising with Zdravko Mamić in the stadium lounge while the indictment against the latter had been pending before the indictment panel, and for accepting an expensive watch from him while being aware that he would likely be appointed as the president of the trial panel in the case. Meanwhile, one of the defendants in the trial presided by the applicant, D.V., complained to the Constitutional Court that he had not been tried by an impartial tribunal. On 29 March 2022 the Constitutional Court, sitting in a thirteen-judge formation (plenary), found that there had been a breach of D.V.’s right to an impartial tribunal. The Constitutional Court noted that, even though the applicant had denied having any corruption agreement with Zdravko Mamić, he had not denied that, while the proceedings against latter had been pending before the indictment panel, he had visited the Dinamo Zagreb stadium lounge, knowing that Zdravko Mamić would be there, and had received an expensive watch from him. The Constitutional Court deemed that those circumstances alone, which the applicant had admitted, objectively called into question the impartiality of the applicant as the president of the trial panel in the case against D.V. Disciplinary proceedings at issue On 7 July 2022 the National Judicial Council established that the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence ( produljeno stegovno djelo ) in that, while the criminal proceedings had been pending against Zdravko Mamić, the applicant had on two occasions socialised with him (and on one of those occasions had accepted a watch from him), and in that, after Zdravko Mamić had fled Croatia and the trial court’s judgment had been pending on appeal, the applicant had attended matches of the Dinamo Zagreb Football Club - the injured party in the criminal proceedings against Zdravko Mamić, which was furthermore under total control by Zdravko Mamić at the time, and in the stadium lounge had consumed food and drinks at the expense of the Club and had socialised with the members of its executive board, which behaviour had been photographed and published in the media on 16 and 18   March 2021, whereby the applicant’s behaviour had become available to the general public, thereby damaging the reputation of the judiciary and the judicial duty. The applicant was removed from judicial duty. On 25 November 2022 the Constitutional Court, sitting in a formation of six judges, all of whom had previously sat in the thirteen-judge panel of that court which had found that D.V. had not been tried by an impartial tribunal, dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal as unfounded. Complaints before the Court The applicant complains that the members of the National Judicial Council were biased against him, in breach of the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He submits that their lack of impartiality was demonstrated by the fact that, in the reasoning of the disciplinary judgment, they implied in several places that he had had a corruption agreement with Zdravko Mamić, remarks which were entirely unnecessary for assessing the applicant’s disciplinary liability. The applicant inter alia refers to the National Judicial Council’s remark made at the very end of the judgment, by which it was allegedly implied that the applicant had allowed Zdravko Mamić to flee Croatia by warning him in advance that the trial court would convict him. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of impartiality of the Constitutional Court, which decided his case in a panel of six judges, all of whom had previously sat in the thirteen ‑ judge panel of the Constitutional Court which had found that D.V. had not been tried by an impartial tribunal. The applicant argues that in that previous decision the Constitutional Court judges had already expressed their opinion that the applicant’s behaviour of socialising with and accepting a watch from Zdravko Mamić had been inappropriate. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s disciplinary case considered by an impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   1.     In particular, were the members of the National Judicial Council impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having specifically regard to several remarks they made in the disciplinary judgment’s reasoning, allegedly implying that the applicant had had a corruption agreement with Zdravko Mamić? Reference is most notably made to the remark at the very end of the judgment, by which it was allegedly implied that the applicant had allowed Zdravko Mamić to flee Croatia by warning him in advance that the trial court would convict him.   2.     Were the judges of the Constitutional Court who decided on the applicant’s appeal against the National Judicial Council’s judgment impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that they had previously sat in a panel of the Constitutional Court which had found that D.V. had not been tried by an impartial tribunal owing to circumstances attributable to the applicant (see Indra v. Slovakia , no. 46845/99, §§ 48-55, 1   February 2005)?