Communicated on 12 December 2013

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 38415/13 Nenad KOVAČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 13 May 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Nenad Kovačević , is a Croatian and Serbian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Osijek . He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Rešetar , a lawyer practising in Osijek .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 8 February 1999 the Osijek County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Osijeku ) convicted the applicant in absentia on charges of murder and sentenced him to nine years ’ imprisonment.

The applicant was arrested on 21 July 2011 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and extradited to Croatia.

On 26 August 2011 the applicant ’ s request for the reopening of the proceedings was granted.

On 5 October 2011 a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court ordered the applicant ’ s detention under Article 123 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding) on the grounds that he had absconded to Bosnia and Herzegovina and that therefore he might again seek to evade justice. It held that his detention could not be replaced by alternative preventive measures.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ), arguing that the indictment had been served not on him but on his brother, who had been only a child at the time, and that he had left Croatia for personal reasons. He handed over his travel documents and offered his mother ’ s house in Croatia as bail to guarantee that he would not abscond. The applicant also contended that the decision of the Osijek County Court lacked the relevant reasoning concerning the possibility of his conditional release.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as ill-founded on 4 November 2011. It held that the circumstances of the case suggested that the applicant had had knowledge of the proceedings and had nonetheless left Croatia. It also considered that the Osijek County Court ’ s decision did not lack the relevant reasoning.

On 16 January 2012 the trial panel of the Osijek County Court extended the applicant ’ s detention under Article 123 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding) , reiterating the previous reasoning.

On 2 February 2012 the applicant was found guilty of murder as charged and sentenced to nine years ’ imprisonment. His detention was extended until the judgment became final.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. On 23 October 2012 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Osijek County Court for re-examination. At the same time, it extended the applicant ’ s detention under Article 123 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding) on the grounds that the circumstances of the case showed that he might abscond. Its decision did not provide any reasoning as to the possibility of the applicant ’ s conditional release.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 13 December 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed it as ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 13 December 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, of the length of, and lack of relevant reas ons for, his pre-trial detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention?

2. Was the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.