Communicated on 6 January 2020

Published on 27 January 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 42613/19 Krunoslav MIK LIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 August 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

Starting from April 2018 the national judicial authorities ordered and then periodically extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him on drug related charges, on the basis of the risk of reoffending. Under Article 131 § 3 of the Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure, following the submission of the indictment in the competent court, the court should re-examine every two months whether the legal grounds for detention still persist, and consequently whether the detention should be extended or lifted. One such decision extending the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was rendered on 26 October 2018 and became final of 5 November 2018. On 15 February 2019 the applicant asked that his detention be lifted arguing that the court failed, two months after the earlier decision extending his detention became final, to examine the justification of his detention and decide on its extension or lifting. On 20 February 2019 the court decided that his detention should be extended. The applicant is still in pre-trial detention on the basis of the risk of reoffending.

The applicant complains, relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the domestic courts failed to examine, two-months after the decision extending his pre-trial detention became final on 5 November 2018, whether the legal grounds for his detention still persisted and whether his detention should be extended or lifted, and that accordingly his pre-trial detention after 5 January 2019 was unlawful.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was the circumstance that the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was not reviewed two months after the decision extending his pre-trial detention became final in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 of the Convention? Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention after 5 January 2019 “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1?