Last Updated on March 18, 2021 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KARAS v. CROATIA
(Application no. 13679/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 March 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Karas v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Erik Wennerström,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 February 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 13679/15) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr PetarKaras (“the applicant”), on 13 March 2015.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr K. Vuljak, a lawyer practising in Koprivnica. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. On 6 April 2017 notice of the complaint concerning the failure of the Constitutional Court to decide the applicant’s constitutional complaint on the merits, was given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Kozarevac.
5. On 19 July 2014 he was arrested on suspicion of causing bodily injury and uttering threats to his common-law wife.
6. On 21 July 2014 an investigating judge of the Varaždin County Court (Županijskisud u Varaždinu) ordered his pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1 (2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o kaznenompostupku) on the grounds of risk of collusion and reoffending.
7. On 24 July 2014 the applicant appealed, alleging lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention. On 28 July 2014 a three-judge panel of the Varaždin County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, upholding the decision of the investigating judge.
8. On 12 August 2014, the Koprivnica Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinskodržavnoodvjetništvo u Koprivnici) filed an indictment against the applicant on charges of causing bodily injury and uttering serious threats to his common-law wife.
9. On 13 August 2014 a three-judge panel of the Koprivnica Municipal Court (Općinskisud u Koprivnici) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on grounds of risk of reoffending.
10. On 18 August 2014, the applicant appealed against the decision to extend his detention, challenging the grounds for his detention. His appeal was dismissed on 21 August 2014.
11. Meanwhile, on 21 August 2014, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Varaždin County Court of 28 July 2014 (see paragraph 7 above), arguing, inter alia, that it lacked relevant reasoning and that his right to liberty and to be presumed innocenthad been violated. The Constitutional Court (UstavnisudRepublikeHrvatske) received his complaint on 25 August 2014.
12. On 16 September 2014 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible because the decision complained of had no longer been in effect when the constitutional complaint had been lodged.
13. On 6 October 2014 the Koprivnica Municipal Court terminated the applicant’s pre-trial detention and imposed precautionary measures prohibiting him from approaching or establishing contact with the injured party.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
14. Relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in V.R. v. Croatia, no. 55102/13, §§ 20-23, 13 October 2015.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicant complained that he had not been able to obtain an effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention by the Constitutional Court, as provided for by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
A. Admissibility
16. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ arguments
17. The applicant argued that, by failing to decide his constitutional complaint on the merits, the Constitutional Court had not complied with the requirements under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
18. The Government argued that the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint against the decision on his detention only after a new decision on his detention had been rendered on 13 August 2014. The applicant must have known that the impugned decision on his detention had already become ineffective at the moment when he had lodged his constitutional complaint and therefore, according to the constant case-law of the Constitutional Court, he had no longer been entitled to judicial review of his pre-trial detention.
2. The Court’s assessment
19. In a number of previous cases against Croatia the Court has already examined the Constitutional Court’s practice of declaring constitutional complaints inadmissible where a fresh decision extending detention had been adopted before it gave its decision. In this connection, the Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that the Constitutional Court’s failure to decide on the applicants’ constitutional complaints on the merits made it impossible to ensure the proper and meaningful functioning of the system for review of their detention provided for by national law (see Peša v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 126, 8 April 2010;Hađi v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, § 47, 1July 2010; Bernobić v. Croatia, no. 57180/09, § 93, 21 June 2011; Krnjak v. Croatia, no. 11228/10, § 54, 28 June 2011;Šebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 223, 28 June 2011; Getoš‑Magdić v. Croatia, no. 56305/08, § 106, 2December 2010; Trifković v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, §§ 139-140, 6November 2012; Margaretićv. Croatia, no. 16115/13, §§ 117-121, June 2014; and V.R., cited above, §§ 32-34).
20. While the Court notes the positive changes in the approach of the Constitutional Court introduced in January 2014, removing any lack of effectiveness of the review procedure before it (see paragraph 14 above), it observes that the applicant’s case was dealt with under the old practice, which was found to be contrary to the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The Court therefore sees no reason to depart from its findings in the cases cited above (see paragraph 19 above).
21. Finally, this conclusion is not altered by the fact that the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint against the decision on his detention only after a new decision on his detention had already been issued on 13 August 2014 (see Margaretić, cited above, §§ 118-120).
22. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
24. The applicant claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
25. The Government considered the applicant’s claim excessive, unsubstantiated and unfounded.
26. Having regard to all the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated solely by the finding of a violation. In view of the circumstances of the present case and ruling on an equitable basis the Court awards the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him.
B. Costs and expenses
27. The applicant also claimed 15,200 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately EUR 2,070) for the costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings before the Constitutional Court and before the Court.
28. The Government contested that claim.
29. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 2,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
C. Default interest
30. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declaresthe application admissible;
2. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts,to be converted into Croatian kunas (HRK) at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 March 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply