Communicated on 21 April 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 55942/15 Dragan ÄŒUTURA against Croatia lodged on 4 November 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dragan ÄŒutura , is a Croatian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Vrbovec .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 16 July and 30 August 2013, and 2 January 2014 the applicant was indicted in Ivani ć -Grand Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Ivani ć -Gradu ) on charges of making serious threats to his neighbours in a state of mental derangement caused by paranoid schizophrenia from which he had been suffering for a number of years.

During the proceedings, the applicant was remanded in detention, which was extended several times by Ivanić -Grand Municipal Court on the grounds of a risk of the applicant ’ s reoffending.

The applicant challenged the orders for his detention before Velika Gorica County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Velikoj Gorici ), which on 12 December 2013 and 13 January 2014 dismissed his appeals as ill-founded. Judge LJ.B. took part in these decisions as a member of the appeal panel of Velika Gorica County Court.

On 14 January 2014 Ivanić -Grand Municipal Court found that the applicant had committed the offence of making serious threats against his neighbours in a state of mental derangement and ordered his internment in a psychiatric institution, in accordance with the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act.

The applicant challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging an appeal before Velika Gorica County Court.

At the same time, he applied to start serving his sentence before the first-instance judgment had become final. On the basis of the applicant ’ s request, the case file was sent to Velika Gorica County Court in order to institute proceedings for the applicant ’ s internment in a hospital before the first-instance judgment became final. However, in response to an intervention by judge LJ.B. at Velika Gorica County Court, the case file was returned to the first-instance court with an instruction that the execution of the sentence could not be instituted until the first-instance judgment had become final.

On 3 March 2014 a three-judge panel of Velika Gorica County Court, on which Judge LJ.B. sat , dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the first-instance judgment of Ivanić -Grand Municipal Court.

Meanwhile the applicant ’ s representative repeatedly complained about the refusal of Ivanić -Grand Municipal Court to allow the applicant to start serving his sentence before the first-instance judgment had become final.

On 7 March 2014 the President of Velika Gorica County Court found that the decision refusing the applicant ’ s request to start serving his sentence before the first-instance judgment had become final had been erroneous but that no substantial disadvantage had occurred as the applicant ’ s conviction had anyway become final in the meantime.

The applicant challenged the judgment of Velika Gorica County Court by lodging a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ). He alleged in particular a lack of impartiality on the part of Velika Gorica County Court given Judge LJ.B. ’ s previous involvement in his case.

On 4 June 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for extraordinary review of a final judgment on the grounds that there was no reason for calling the impartiality of Judge LJ.B into question.

On 20 May 2015 the Constitutional Court upheld these findings and dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint as unfounded.

2. The applicant ’ s involuntary placement in the psychiatric hospital

On 27 August 2014 Zagreb County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zagrebu ) ‒ the court with the competence to decide about the applicant ’ s involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital under the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act ‒ examined a proposal made by the Vrap č e Psychiatric Clinic ( Klinika za psihijatriju Vrap č e ) that the applicant be detained in hospital for a further period of one year.

During the proceedings the applicant was represented by T. Ž., a legal aid lawyer. However, she never visited him in order to explain the relevant procedures, nor did she take any instructions from him. The applicant was not present at the hearing before Zagreb County Court when the request for his involuntary placement in the hospital was examined and the lawyer T.Ž. made no submission on his behalf.

On the same day Zagreb County Court ordered the applicant ’ s involuntary hospitalisation for a further period of one year.

The applicant ’ s father, on behalf of the applicant, challenged that decision before a three-judge panel of Zagreb County Court, alleging in particular a lack of effectiveness on the part of the applicant ’ s legal representation in the proceedings concerning his involuntary hospitalisation.

On 19 December 2014 a three-judge panel of Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as ill-founded on the grounds that a lawyer had been duly appointed to represent him in the proceedings concerning his involuntary hospitalisation.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court, which dismissed it on 3 June 2015 and endorsed the reasoning of the three-judge panel of Zagreb County Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the second-instance court which examined his appeal against the first-instance judgment ordering his internment in a psychiatric hospital lacked impartiality, due to the previous involvement of Judge LJ.B. in his case.

The applicant also alleges, under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, substantial flaws in the procedure for authorising his involuntary hospitalisation, related primarily to the lack of effective legal representation and absence of relevant grounds for his involuntary confinement.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of the procedural and substantive requirements of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention?

2. Was the second-instance court which dealt with the applicant ’ s criminal case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the criminal case against the applicant and the case concerning his involuntary placement in the psychiatric hospital.