Communicated on 30 January 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 20230/15 Antonio MARAS against Croatia lodged on 21 April 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Antonio Maras, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1991 and lives in Split. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Å timac , a lawyer practising in Split.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2011 the Split Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Splitu ) lodged an indictment in the Split Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Splitu ) against a certain H.M. on charges of causing grave bodily injury to the applicant.

The applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a victim. In the course of the proceedings he was represented by a lawyer.

On 11 October 2013 the Split Municipal Court found H.M. guilty and sentenced him to community service. It also awarded the applicant 6,850 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 900 euros) for costs and expenses of his legal representation.

H.M. appealed to the Split County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Splitu ) and on 1 April 2014 the Split County Court upheld his conviction but quashed the decision on costs and expenses on the grounds that it lacked relevant reasoning.

On 30 October 2014 a single judge of the Split County Court awarded the applicant HRK 6,875 in costs and expenses, providing detail reasoning for its decision.

H.M. challenged this decision before a three-judge panel of the Split Municipal Court.

On 7 January 2015 the three-judge panel reversed the decision on costs and expenses, refusing to grant the applicant ’ s claim. It held, relying on Article 122 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that H.M. should not bear the costs and expenses of the proceedings due to his difficult financial situation.

The applicant challenged this decision before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), and on 19 February 2015 the Constitutional Court declared his complaint inadmissible on the grounds that it was not an individual act which could be challenged by a constitutional complaint.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 6 March 2015.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant part of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku – Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002 and 62/2003, 178/2004 and 115/2006) reads:

Article 119

“(1) The costs of criminal proceedings are expenses incurred by reason of criminal proceedings from their institution to their termination, including the costs of undertaking investigatory actions before an investigation.

(2) The costs of criminal proceedings shall consist of:

...

8) necessary expenses of the injured party and his legal guardian and fees and necessary expenses of his legal representative.”

Article 122

“(1) When the court finds the defendant guilty, it shall state in the judgment that he must pay the costs of the criminal proceedings.

...

(4) The court may, in a decision on costs, decide that the defendant shall not pay the entire or partial sum of the costs of the criminal pro ceedings referred to in Article 119 paragraph 2 subparagraphs 1 to 6 of this Code and the fee and necessary expenses of any officially appointed defence counsel if payment of these costs could imperil the maintenance of the defendant or persons he is bound to maintain. If these circumstances are determined after the decision on costs was adopted, the president of the panel may, by a separate decision, dispense the defendant from the duty to bear the costs of the criminal proceedings.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decision refusing his claim for costs and expenses of the proceedings was unlawful and unjustified.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s legitimate property expectations related to the award of costs and expenses of the proceedings, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that interference lawful and justified, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.