Published on 28 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 21714/22 Zoran MAMIĆ against Croatia and two other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 November 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The first and second applicants are brothers who occupied key functions in the Dinamo Zagreb football club. The third applicant is a tax inspector.

The applications concern criminal proceedings against the applicants in which they were given prison sentences. The criminal offences of which the first and second applicants were convicted were related to transfer compensation paid to the Dinamo Zagreb football club for two prominent Croatian football players.

A day before the first-instance judgment was pronounced, the second applicant left Croatia for Bosnia and Hercegovina where he remains until today. While the proceedings were pending before the appellate court, he sent a USB stick to the State Attorney’s Office in charge of prosecuting corruption and organised crime, in which he accused several judges of the trial court of corruption. After the appellate court judgment was given, he made those accusations at a press conference. The judges concerned, one of which was the president of the trial panel in the proceedings against the applicants, were arrested and an investigation was opened against them and the first and second applicants for giving and receiving bribe in exchange for delivering a favourable decision in the trial.

The applicants then complained to the Constitutional Court that they had not been tried by an impartial tribunal. The Constitutional Court rejected the first and second applicants’ complaint on the grounds that, although aware of the circumstances early in the proceedings, they had failed to ask the trial panel president’s removal from the case. The Constitutional Court did not address the third applicant’s complaint in that regard.

All the applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they were not tried by an impartial tribunal, in that the trial panel president had an inappropriate relationship with the second applicant, received money and presents from him, and frequently visited, as a VIP guest, matches of the Dinamo Zagreb football club, the injured party in the proceedings.

The first and second applicants further complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the criminal proceedings against them were not instituted at the request of an authorised prosecutor, because the indictment was signed, and the prosecution represented in the trial, by a person who did not meet the statutory requirements to act as the Deputy Head of the special State Attorney’s Office in charge of prosecuting corruption. They allege that the domestic courts adopted a manifestly unreasonable point of view on the matter, which thus remains a topic of debate in Croatia.

The second applicant also complains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, that the trial panel president removed him from the courtroom at 17 hearings on the grounds of his improper behaviour, and that at one point he did not even allow him to enter the courthouse.

The second applicant further complains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, about not being allowed to participate in the session of the appeal panel by way of a video link from Bosnia and Hercegovina.

The second applicant lastly complains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, about a virulent press campaign against him and about statements made by different public officials in connection with the criminal charges against him.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the circumstances concerning the trial panel president, notably his allegedly inappropriate relationship with the second applicant and the injured party and his receiving bribe from the second applicant, were the charges against the applicants determined by an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

Of which significance is the circumstance that the second applicant allegedly bribed the trial panel president to deliver a favourable decision in the trial, and complained about not being tried by an impartial tribunal when the trial panel had convicted him? Can the situation raise an issue of a waiver of the right to an impartial tribunal, or of an abuse of rights under Article 17 or Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention?

Was the first applicant aware of the circumstances surrounding the trial panel president before the press conference held by the second applicant?

Did the Constitutional Court examine the third applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of the trial panel president (see, mutatis mutandis , Remli v. France , 23 April 1996, §§ 43-48, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Danilov v. Russia , no. 88/05, §§ 100-101, 1 December 2020)?

2. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the first and second applicants on account of the fact that the indictment was signed, and the prosecution represented during the trial, by S.M., Deputy Municipal State Attorney at the time, who was appointed by the General State Attorney to work, on a temporary basis, in the special State Attorney’s Office in charge of prosecuting corruption and organized crime?

3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of the second applicant on account of:

(a) his removal from the courtroom and the courthouse (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 175-182, 22 May 2012, and Marguš v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, §§ 91-92, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); and/or

(b) his not being allowed to participate in the session of the appeal panel by way of a video link?

4. Has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant on account of the allegedly virulent press campaign and the statements made by public officials in connection with the criminal charges against him?

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

21714/22

Mamić v. Croatia

29/04/2022

Zoran MAMIĆ 1971 Tomislavgrad Croatian

Å ime MATAK

2.

25102/22

Mamić v. Croatia

10/05/2022

Zdravko MAMIĆ 1959 Međugorje Croatian and of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Lidija HORVAT

and Sandra MARKOVIĆ

3.

25367/22

Pernar v. Croatia

14/05/2022

Milan PERNAR 1970 Turopolje Croatian

no representative