FIRST SECTION

Application no. 31379/10 Stipe PETRINA against Croatia lodged on 25 May 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stipe Petrina, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Primošten. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Korljan, a lawyer practising in Zadar.

The application was lodged with the Court on 25 May 2010.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 31 March 2003 the Šibenik Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku ) indicted the applicant before the Šibenik Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Šibeniku ) on charges of attempted grievous bodily injury.

On 16 March 2006 the Å ibenik Municipal Court held a first hearing. The applicant was not present at the hearing. The Å ibenik Municipal Court examined one witness and adjourned the hearing.

During the proceedings, the applicant informed the Šibenik Municipal Court that he was not able to attend the hearings owing to his medical condition. The Šibenik Municipal Court consequently ordered that the applicant ’ s health be assessed by medical experts on four occasions.

On 30 May 2006 a medical expert indicated that the applicant had cardiac arrhythmia and was not able to attend the hearings. On 13 September 2006 another medical expert confirmed the same findings.

On 15 April 2007 a panel of medical experts also concluded that the applicant was not able to attend the hearings. On 19 June 2007 the same panel of medical experts found that the applicant was still not able to attend the hearings. However, they noted that he would be able to participate in the hearings if a medical team equipped for prompt intervention were also present.

On 11 October 2007 the applicant informed the Å ibenik Municipal Court that he was being represented by a lawyer named Ms B.N.

The Šibenik Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 20 November 2007. It summoned a cardiologist, Dr A.S., to the hearing. On 19 November 2007 the applicant ’ s defence lawyer informed the Šibenik Municipal Court that she could not attend the hearing since she was on maternity leave. The applicant was not properly summoned and did not attend this hearing. The cardiologist, Dr A.S., did not appear at the hearing nor did he excuse his absence.

The Å ibenik Municipal Court adjourned the hearing until 19 December 2007. It summoned Dr A.S. and the applicant to the hearing. The applicant excused his absence relying on his medical condition. Dr. A.S. again did not appear at the hearing nor did he excuse his absence.

The Šibenik Municipal Court, however, held a hearing and found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four months ’ imprisonment, suspended for one year.

On 27 June and 17 July 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal before the Šibenik County Court ( Županijski sud u Šibeniku ) against the decision to hold a hearing in his absence. The applicant complained that he had not been able to attend the hearing owing to his medical condition and that the first-instance court had failed to secure the presence of a medical team.

On 17 July 2008 the applicant ’ s defence lawyer lodged an appeal before the Šibenik County Court against the first-instance judgment. On 18 July 2008 the applicant also lodged an appeal. They reiterated that the hearing of 19 December 2007 had been held in the absence of the applicant even though he had not been able to attend the hearing owing to his medical condition. They also complained that the necessary medical assistance at the hearing had not been secured.

On 10 October 2008 the Å ibenik County Court dismissed all the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. The court found that the applicant had been abusing his procedural rights and that he was only trying to delay the trial.

On 10 February 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining, inter alia , that the hearing before the first-instance court had been held in his absence.

On 29 April 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair, in that he was tried in his absence even though he was not able to attend the hearings owing to his medical condition.

The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 (a) of the Convention that the fact that neither he nor his defence lawyer was present at the hearing deprived him of the possibility to be informed of charges against him.

The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention that his defence lawyer was not summoned to the hearing.

The applicant also complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 (d) of the Convention, that his absence from the hearing deprived him of the opportunity to examine witnesses and that the witnesses were not duly examined by the first-instance court.

Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was discriminated against because neither he nor his defence lawyer was present at the hearing.

QUESTIONS

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant provided with an opportunity to effectively participate in the hearings?