FIRST SECTION
CASE OF
BEČEHELI v. CROATIA
(Application no.
8855/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 May 2013
This judgment is final but
it may be subject to editorial revision
In the case of Bečeheli v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner,
President,
Mirjana Lazarova
Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 8855/08) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Marijan Bečeheli (“the
applicant”), on 9 January 2008.
The applicant was
represented by Mr Lj. Drageljević, a lawyer practising in Rijeka. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms
Š. Stažnik.
On 21 March 2012 the application was communicated
to the Government.
THE FACTS
The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving
a prison sentence in the Lepoglava Penitentiary.
On 14 June 2004 the applicant was indicted before
the Rijeka County Court along with other twenty two accused, on charges of drug
trafficking, offering illegal substances to a number of persons and extortion.
On 5 January 2006 the Rijeka County Court pronounced
a judgement whereby it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him
to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.
On 5 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from
the Rijeka Prison (Zatvor u Rijeci) to the Zagreb Prison (Zatvor u Zagrebu).
On 4 September 2006 a written copy of the
judgement was served on the applicant’s representative.
Both the applicant and the Rijeka County State
Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Rijeci) appealed
against the first-instance judgement.
On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud
Republike Hrvatske) allowed an appeal by the State Attorney’s Office and
increased the applicant’s prison sentence to nine years and six months.
On 30 July 2007 the applicant lodged a
constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud
Republike Hrvatske). He claimed that the Supreme Court’s judgment was in
breach of his constitutional rights to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his defence and to free communication with his defence counsel,
and that illegally obtained evidence had been used in the criminal proceedings
against him.
On 23 December 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed
the applicant’s constitutional complaint. This decision was served on the
applicant’s representative on 14 January 2011.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings
before the Constitutional Court had been incompatible with the “reasonable
time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...
tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
The Government disputed the admissibility of
this complaint by arguing that the applicant had abused the right of
application in that he had not informed the Court of the Constitutional Court’s
decision of 23 December 2010.
The Court reiterates that, should an applicant
omit to submit all the documents which the Government, or even the Court, would
find relevant for the final examination of a case, this should not per se
amount to abuse of the right of application (see Milošević v. Serbia
(dec.), § 40, no. 20037/07, 5 July 2011). It therefore considers that the
fact the applicant in the present case had failed to inform it in a timely
manner of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 December 2010, though
regrettable, does not, in the circumstances, constitute an abuse of his right
of application. The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected.
16. The Court further notes that this complaint is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 30 July 2007 when the applicant lodged his constitutional complaint and
ended on 14 January 2011 when the Constitutional Court’s decision was
served on the applicant’s representative. It thus lasted more than three years
and five months.
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of
the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of
the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the
case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no.
25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
The Court has frequently found violations of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in
the present case (see, for example, Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 21,
16 June 2005).
Having examined all the material submitted to
it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the
present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant also complained that he had not
had adequate time to prepare his defence because of the voluminous case-file
and the fact that he had been transferred to another prison during the
appellate proceedings. He further complained that certain evidence, which had
been used against him in the criminal proceedings, had been obtained illegally. He relied on
Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention.
In the light of all the material in its
possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its
competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not
disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is
inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there
has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured
party.”
The applicant did not submit a claim for just
satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him
any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 May 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Elisabeth
Steiner
Deputy Registrar President
