FIRST SECTION

Application no. 55133/13 Stanislav KNEŽEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 8 August 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stanislav Knežević , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Split . He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Franceschi , a lawyer practising in Split .

A. The circumstances of the case

On 20 May 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and detained under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and gravity of charges).

During the proceedings the applicant ’ s detention was extended several times .

On 16 May 2012 the applicant was indicted in the Split County Court ( Županijski sud u Splitu ) on charges of drug trafficking.

On 25 January 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the applicant ’ s detention under Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoff ending and gravity of charges).

On 20 February 2013 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ), upon the applicant ’ s appeal, reversed the decision of the Split County Court and extended the applicant ’ s detention only under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending).

On 17 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the two-year maximum period during which the applicant could be kept in pre-trial detention under Article 133 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a further six months (until 19 N ovember 2013), relying on section 35 ( 2 ) of the Act on the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (hereinafter: the “Act”).

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court on 22 May 2013, arguing that section 35 ( 2 ) of the Act was inapplicable to his case, given that he had not been detained during an investigation.

On 7 June 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on the grounds that the said provision of the Act was incomprehensible, given that, on a plain reading, it merely repeated section 35(1) of the Act, which would accordingly be redundant. Instead it should be interpreted as allowing the extension of the maximum overall period of detention for a further six months, which in the applicant ’ s case was until 19 November 2013.

On 18 June 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reiterating his previous arguments.

On 11 July 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint endorsing the reasoning of the Supreme Court.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku ; Official Gazette nos. 152/2008, 76/2009, 80/2011, 121/2011, 143/2012, 56/2013) read:

Article 130

“ (1) The maximum period of pre-trial detention [that may be] ordered by the investigating judge or a three-judge panel is one month from the date of [a person ’ s] deprivation of liberty.

(2) If there is a valid reason the investigating judge may, upon a motion of the prosecution, extend the [period of] pre-trial detention, for the first time, for two months, and subsequently, ..., for a further three months. ...”

Article 133

“(1) Until the adoption of a first-instance judgment, pre-trial detention may last for a maximum of:

...

4. two years for offences carrying a sentence of more than eight years ’ imprisonment; ...”

The relevant provision of the Act on the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime ( Zakon o Uredu za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; Official Gazette nos. 76/2009, 116/2010, 145/2010, 57/2011, 136/2012 ) provides :

Section 35

“(1) The maximum period of detention before indictment, if the investigation has been extended (Article 230 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), is twelve months. The investigating judge may also extend [any] pre-trial detention for three months.

(2) If [a person ’ s] pre-trial detention has been extended during the investigation as provided for in subsection 1 of this section, the maximum period of detention under Article 130 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be extended for a further six months.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that he was unlawfully detained after 20 May 2013.

He also complains, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, about the length of 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 documents concerning the decisions on the applicant ’ s detention.