Communicated on 17 March 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 77707/13 Jasmin SMAILAGIĆ against Croatia lodged on 29 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jasmin Smailagić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Rijeka . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Margan , a lawyer practising in Rijeka .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 26 April 2001 an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zagrebu ) opened an investigation against the applicant on charges of economic crime.

The applicant appealed against that decision and on 26 April 2001 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court, composed of judges S.P.L., T.I.T. and S.B.B., dismissed his appeal and upheld the decision of the investigating judge.

Following the investigation, on 7 February 2002 the applicant was indicted in the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court ( Op ć inski kazneni sud u Zagrebu ) on charges of economic crime.

On 31 May 2007 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten months ’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, but this judgment was quashed on appeal on 29 January 2008.

On 13 November 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court again found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten months ’ im prisonment, suspended for two years .

The applicant appealed and on 17 November 2009 an appeal panel of the Zagreb County Court, composed of judges S.B.B., L.S. and T.I.T., dismissed his appeal as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance judgment.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining, inter alia , that the appeal court had not been impartial.

On 9 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint as ill-founded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the appeal court was not impartial .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the appeal court which dealt with the applicant ’ s case impartial?

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