European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)51¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

PreZec against Croatia

(Application No. 48185/07, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to the authorities’ failure to grant the applicant free legal assistance at the trial stage in criminal proceedings against him and failure of the counsel assigned to the applicant at the appeal stage to contact him and become acquainted with his version of the facts (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c)) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)51

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

PreZec against Croatia

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that in 2004 he had not been granted free legal assistance at the trial stage in criminal proceedings against him and in that the counsel assigned to him at the appeal stage had not contacted him (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3(c)).

The Court noted that the applicant’s mental state and the fact that as a convicted prisoner he had been charged with an offence against a prison employee warranted his legal representation in the proceedings at issue. The Court also observed that in view of the fact that the counsel assigned to the applicant at the appeal stage had never contacted him, the counsel could hardly have been acquainted with the applicant’s version of events. The representation by a legal-aid lawyer during the appeal proceedings did not satisfy the requirements of a fair trial.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The Court considered that the finding of a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3(c) of the Convention together with the possibility open to the applicant under national law to seek a fresh trial (Article 430 of the Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure) constituted in itself just satisfaction in the circumstances of the present case. In this respect, it is noted that on 10/09/2009, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment at issue and ordered a retrial in this case. In doing so, the Supreme Court noted that the Pula Municipal Court had failed to acknowledge the existence of special circumstances, which required that a counsel be appointed to the applicant at the trial stage of the proceedings. However, on 08/12/2009, the Pula Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings due to the statute of limitation. In this regard, no further criminal proceedings could be conducted against the applicant in respect of the same offence. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

It seems that this was an isolated violation resulting from the particular circumstances of the case. In view of the direct effect of the Convention in Croatia, publication of the Court’s judgment and its dissemination to the relevant courts should be sufficient to prevent similar violations. In this context it should be noted that the Court’s judgment has been translated into Croatian and sent out to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and to the courts involved in this case. It is also available on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.mprh.hr).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Croatia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.