FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 792\/16
\nTomislav MESI\u0106 against Croatia
\nand 4 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12\u00a0February 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
\nKsenija Turkovi\u0107,
\nPauliine Koskelo, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The Croatian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms \u0160. Sta\u017enik.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Mesi\u0107 v. Croatia, application no. 792\/16<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 May 2010 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court (Prekr\u0161ajni sud u Zagrebu) found the applicant guilty of inciting and encouraging a fight during a football match on 1 May 2010 and of hitting a police officer with a broken seat, as well as of being under the influence of alcohol in a sports facility, contrary to the Prevention of Disorder at Sports Events Act (Zakon o sprje\u010davanju nereda na \u0161portskim natjecanjima \u2013 hereinafter \u201cthe Act\u201d). He was sentenced to thirty days in prison, suspended for one year, and fined 1,000 Croatian kunas (HRK \u2013 approximately 130 euros). In addition, under section 32(1) of the Act, a protective measure (za\u0161titna mjera) was applied, prohibiting the applicant from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb Football Club and of the Croatian national team in Croatia for one year. The judgment became final on the same day as the applicant waived his right to appeal.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 February 2014\u00a0the Zagreb Minor Offences Court found the applicant guilty of unlawfully entering a stadium during a football match on\u00a021 February 2014, contrary to the Act. He was sentenced to ten days in prison, suspended for six months. In addition, under section 32(1) of the Act, the protective measure was applied, prohibiting the applicant from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb Football Club and of the Croatian national team in Croatia for one year. The judgment became final on the same day as the applicant waived his right to appeal.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 July 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the police, applied a measure under section 34a(1) of the Act (\u201cthe exclusion measure\u201d) in respect of the applicant and prohibited him from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb and of the Croatian national team both in Croatia and abroad for a period of one year. It also ordered him to report to the police station two hours before every relevant football match to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and the two hours after it ended.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The Zagreb Minor Offences Court reasoned its decision by relying on information provided by the police, including the applicant\u2019s behaviour at the football match on 1 May 2010 and the judgment of 22 February 2014 which had found him guilty of hooliganism (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above), and stressed that the measure was needed in order to prevent him from committing further minor offences.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court (Visoki prekr\u0161ajni sud Republike Hrvatske). He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the exclusion measure on him for the same conduct of which he had already been found guilty and sentenced amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 September 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on the grounds that the application of the exclusion measure was not a penalty imposed against him but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Ze\u010devi\u0107 v. Croatia, application no. 5677\/16<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0By final judgments of the Zagreb Minor Offences Court and the High Minor Offences Court the applicant was acquitted of charges of hooliganism during football matches on 1 May 2010, 10 March 2013 and 10\u00a0August 2013.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 July 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the police, applied the exclusion measure in respect of the applicant and prohibited him from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb and of the Croatian national team both in Croatia and abroad for a period of one year. It also ordered him to report to the police station two hours before every relevant football match to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and the two hours after it ended.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0The Zagreb Minor Offences Court reasoned its decision by relying on information provided by the police, including the fact that the applicant had been prosecuted for hooliganism (see paragraph 10 above), and stressed that the measure was needed in order to prevent him from committing further minor offences.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the exclusion measure on him for the same conduct for which he had already been prosecuted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle.<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 September 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on the grounds that the application of the exclusion measure was not a penalty imposed against him but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct, which could be applied on the basis of any information suggesting such conduct.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Juri\u0107 v. Croatia, application no. 21599\/16<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 December 2013 the Split Minor Offences Court (Prekr\u0161ajni sud u Splitu) found the applicant guilty of shouting out offensive remarks during a football match on 18 December 2013, the content of which could incite hatred on the basis of race, nationality or faith, and fined him HRK\u00a01,000. In addition, the protective measure was applied, prohibiting the applicant from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb and of the Croatian national team in Croatia for a period of one year. As part of the measure, the applicant was ordered to report to the police two hours before every relevant football match to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and the two hours after it ended. The judgment became final on the same day.<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 September 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the police, applied the exclusion measure in respect of the applicant and prohibited him from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb and of the Croatian national team both in Croatia and abroad for a period of one year. It also ordered him to report to the police station two hours before every relevant football match to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and the two hours after it ended.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0The Zagreb Minor Offences Court reasoned its decision by relying on information provided by the police, including the applicant\u2019s behaviour during the football match on 18 December 2013 (see paragraph 15 above), and stressed that the measure was needed in order to prevent him from committing further minor offences.<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the exclusion measure on him for the same conduct of which he had already been convicted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 October 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on the grounds that the application of the exclusion measure was not a penalty imposed against him but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Vrhovski v. Croatia, application no. 27292\/16<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 January 2014 the Split Minor Offences Court acquitted the applicant of charges of hooliganism during a football match on 15 August 2012. The judgment became final on 19 April 2014.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 July 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the police, applied the exclusion measure in respect of the applicant and prohibited him from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb and of the Croatian national team both in Croatia and abroad for a period of one year. It also ordered him to report to the police station two hours before every relevant football match to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and the two hours after it ended.<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0The Zagreb Minor Offences Court reasoned its decision by relying on information provided by the police, including the fact that the applicant had been prosecuted for hooliganism (see paragraph 20 above), and stressed that the measure was needed in order to prevent him from committing further minor offences.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the exclusion measure on him for the same conduct for which he had already been prosecuted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle.<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 December 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on the grounds that the application of the exclusion measure was not a penalty imposed on the applicant but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct, which could be applied on the basis of any information suggesting such conduct.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Je\u0111ud v. Croatia, application no. 38450\/16<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 December 2013 the Virovitica Minor Offences Court (Prekr\u0161ajni sud u Virovitici) found the applicant and several other individuals guilty of being in an intoxicated condition at a football match on\u00a025 September 2013, contrary to the Act. The decision became final on\u00a018\u00a0November 2014.<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 November 2014 the Koprivnica Minor Offences Court (Prekr\u0161ajni sud u Koprivnici) dismissed charges of hooliganism against the applicant relating to an incident at a football match on 20 March 2010.<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 September 2015 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court, on the basis of a request by the police, applied the exclusion measure in respect of the applicant and prohibited him from attending all football matches of Dinamo Zagreb and of the Croatian national team both in Croatia and abroad for a period of one year. It also ordered him to report to the police station two hours before every relevant football match to provide information on his whereabouts during the football match and the two hours after it ended.<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0The Zagreb Minor Offences Court reasoned its decision by relying on information provided by the police, including the fact that the applicant had been prosecuted for hooliganism (see paragraphs 25-26 above), and stressed that the measure was needed in order to prevent him from committing further minor offences.<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court. He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the exclusion measure on him for the same conduct for which he had already been prosecuted amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle.<\/p>\n
30.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 October 2015 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on the grounds that the application of the exclusion measure was not a penalty imposed on him but a measure preventing his future disorderly conduct, which could be applied on the basis of any information suggesting such conduct. The decision was served on the applicant and his lawyer on 23 and 24 December 2015 respectively.<\/p>\n
31.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant challenged this decision before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) and on 30 March 2016 the Constitutional Court declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that it was not in reference to a specific decision about the applicant\u2019s rights and obligations or any criminal charge against him which was amenable to challenge by a constitutional complaint.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant law and practice<\/p>\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\n| Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n | Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n | Applicant<\/strong> | \nDate of birth<\/strong> \nNationality<\/strong> \nPlace of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n | 1<\/td>\n | 792\/16<\/td>\n | 14\/12\/2015<\/td>\n | Tomislav MESI\u0106<\/strong> | \n07\/05\/1983 \nCroatian \nZagreb<\/td>\n Davorin KARA\u010cI\u0106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 5677\/16<\/td>\n | 18\/01\/2016<\/td>\n | Ivan ZE\u010cEVI\u0106<\/strong> | \n05\/10\/1985 \nCroatian \nZagreb<\/td>\n Davorin KARA\u010cI\u0106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 21599\/16<\/td>\n | 15\/04\/2016<\/td>\n | Tomislav JURI\u0106<\/strong> | \n07\/05\/1979 \nCroatian \nZagreb<\/td>\n Davorin KARA\u010cI\u0106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | 4<\/td>\n | 27292\/16<\/td>\n | 09\/05\/2016<\/td>\n | Ranko VRHOVSKI<\/strong> | \n03\/01\/1985 \nCroatian \nZagreb<\/td>\n Davorin KARA\u010cI\u0106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | 5<\/td>\n | 38450\/16<\/td>\n | 29\/06\/2016<\/td>\n | Vanja JE\u0110UD<\/strong> | \n07\/06\/1990 \nCroatian \nZagreb<\/td>\n Davorin KARA\u010cI\u0106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" | FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 792\/16 Tomislav MESI\u0106 against Croatia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12\u00a0February 2019 as a Committee composed of: Armen Harutyunyan, President, Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, Pauliine…<\/p>\n |