Communicated on 27 January 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 67334/13 Sanjin BAJČIĆ against Croatia lodged on 13 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sanjin Bajčić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Zagreb . He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Marjanović , 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 13 October 2004, at around 11.20 a.m., in Rijeka, the applicant, who was driving over the speed limit, caused a road accident in which one person died.

The applicant was tried before the Rijeka Minor Offences Court ( Prekr Å¡ ajni sud u Rijeci ) and on 31 July 2006 he was fined with 4,100 Croatian kunas (approximately 565 euros) for exceeding the speed limit, driving a defective car and leaving the scene without informing the police. It appears that the fine was later replaced by a prison sentence.

In 2005, concerning the same incident, the State Attorney ’ s Office indicted the applicant in the Rijeka Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Rijeci ) on charges of causing a fatal road accident.

The applicant was found guilty on 21 March 2011 and sentenced to one year and six months ’ imprisonment.

The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Rijeka County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Rijeci ) on 5 September 2012.

The applicant then lodged a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining, inter alia , that he had been convicted of the same offence twice.

On 29 January 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for extraordinary review of a final judgment as ill-founded.

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reiterating his complaints.

On 29 May 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 13 June 2013.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 , that he was convicted of the same offence twice.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has the applicant been convicted twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibit ed by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?

If so, did the proceedings fall within the exce ptions envisaged by Article 4§ 2 of Protocol No. 7?

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