FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2893/17 Petar ŠARIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Gilberto Felici , Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 December 2016,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Petar Šarić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Drniš . He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Mađerić , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

2 . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik .

The circumstances of the case

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . On 21 May 2002 the applicant was indicted before the Šibenik County Court ( Županijski sud u Šibeniku ) on charges of abuse of power and authority. He was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, S.B.

5 . On 26 April 2007 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to one years ’ imprisonment.

6 . Following an appeal by the applicant, that judgment was quashed by the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 10 November 2010 and the case was remitted to the first-instance court.

7 . In the resumed proceedings, at the beginning of the final hearing before the trial court held on 13 May 2013, the prosecution partially amended the factual description of the criminal offence in the indictment.

8 . At the same hearing the applicant asked to be given additional time in order to prepare his defence in relation to the amended charges, but his request was dismissed.

9 . On the following day, the trial court found the applicant guilty of abuse of power and authority and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of ten months ’ imprisonment. The first-instance judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 17 December 2015.

10 . The applicant, represented by his lawyer at that time, lodged a constitutional complaint arguing, inter alia , that he had not been granted adequate time to prepare his defence.

11 . On 11 May 2016 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint. According to the receipt slip submitted by the Government, the decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 2 June 2016.

12 . According to the applicant, he was informed of the Constitutional Court ’ s decision on 3 July 2016.

COMPLAINT

13 . The applicant complained, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, that he had not had adequate time for the preparation of his defence after the prosecution had ame n ded the charges against him.

THE LAW

14 . The applicant relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention.

15 . The Government submitted that, contrary to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant had lodged his application with the Court outside the six-month time-limit, calculated from the date when his representative had been served with the Constitutional Court ’ s decision, which was the final decision in the domestic proceedings.

16 . The applicant submitted that the lawyer, who had previously represented him in the domestic proceedings, had informed him that of the Constitutional Court ’ s decision only on 3 July 2016. However the applicant did not provide any evidence in this respect.

17 . Article 35 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows:

“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”

18 . The Court reiterates its established case-law pertaining to the requirements of the six-month rule. The purpose of the six-month rule is to promote legal certainty, ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a situation of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § § 40-42, 29 June 2012; see also Shirnova v. Azerbaijan ( dec. ), no. 31876/11, 12 November 2011).

19 . Furthermore, in a situation where the applicant is represented by a lawyer, the six-month period will run from the date on which the applicant ’ s lawyer became aware of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant only became aware of the decision later (see Çelik v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 52991/99, ECHR 2004-X, with further references).

20 . The Court notes that in the domestic proceedings the applicant was represented by lawyer S.B. Accordingly, the six-month period in in his case started to run at the latest on 3 June 2016, the day following the date when the Constitutional Court ’ s decision had been duly served on the applicant ’ s lawyer, as attested by the receipt slip (see paragraph 11 above). The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 23 December 2016, that is, more than six months later.

21 . Accordingly, the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020 .

Renata Degener Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President