Communicated on 9 September 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 36867/14 Davor GROBENSKI against Croatia lodged on 12 May 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Davor Grobenski , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1993 and lives in Koprivnica . He is represented before the Court by Ms K. Vuljak , a lawyer practising in Koprivnica .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is a person with the diagnosis of light mental disability.

On 25 September 2013 he was arrested and remanded in custody in connection with a suspicion of the offences of aggravated theft.

Upon his arrest, based on an order of the competent State Attorney ’ s Office, the applicant was questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer, whereby he confessed to the offences at issue.

On 27 September 2013 an investigating judge of the Vara ž din County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Vara ž dinu ) ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention on the grounds of the risk of reoffending (Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The judge found that a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences at issue followed particularly from his police confession and from other material from the case file.

On 18 October 2013 the Koprivnica Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Koprivnici ) indicted the applicant in the Koprivnica Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Koprivnici ) on charges of aggravated thefts.

On 22 October 2013 a hearing was held before the Koprivnica Municipal Court concerning the decision on the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

During the hearing, the applicant ’ s legal aid lawyer submitted that the applicant, at the time nineteen years old, had been a person with mental disability issues and social development problems and that he had been questioned by the police without the presence of a lawyer which had prevented him from understanding his position and rights. Thus his confession had been unlawfully obtained evidence and could not be used in the proceedings.

On the same day a three-judge panel of the Koprivnica Municipal Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention on the grounds of the risk of reoffending (Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). It found that the reasonable suspicion followed above all from the applicant ’ s confession, which was in compliance with other evidence from the case file. It also refused to discuss the issue of the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant ’ s confession on the grounds that it was not its task to deal with the matter but that it should be addressed during the scheduling of the hearing and in the subsequent proceedings.

The applicant appealed this decision before the Varaždin County Court pointing out that the Koprivnica Municipal Court had established reasonable suspicion justifying his pre-trial detention on the evidence in respect of which he had raised arguable claim of unlawfulness. At the same time it had refused to examine any of his arguments concerning the unlawfulness of such evidence.

On 30 October 2013 the Varaždin County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reiterating his previous arguments.

On 28 November 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint as ill-founded upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 2 November 2013.

Meanwhile, on 27 November 2013, the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention formally terminated as he was sent to serve a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 5 of the Convention, that the reasonable suspicion for his pre-trial detention was based on his allegedly unlawful confession to the police given in the absence of a lawyer, and that in the judicial review procedure of the lawfulness of his detention he did not have an opportunity to challenge such assumptions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did his deprivation of liberty complied with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this provision?

2. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have a possibility to challenge the alleged reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence warranting his pre-trial detention?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant ’ s case.