Report on Croatia
Section 1
Decisions of violation of Article 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) by Croatia in criminal proceedings over the last two years, as determined by
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
The following sets out the number of violation decisions the ECtHR has made against
Croatia under Articles 5 and 6, since April 2012 up to the date of this country report.
Overview of violation findings:
During the 2 year period, Croatia has been held in violation of Article 5 ECHR in 7 decided
cases and in violation of Article 6 in 5 decided cases (all being cases involving criminal
charges or proceedings and (in the case of Article 5) relating to pre-charge, pre-trial, or presentence detention).
Croatia had a number of cases addressing its excessive use of pre-trial detention and
applicants mainly complained of being unable to challenge this detention under Article 5 (3)
and (4)
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security

Right not to be deprived of liberty save in specific circumstances [Article 5 (1)] – no
breaches
Trifkovic V. Croatia – (Decided Oct 2012) App No. 36653/09 - detention after when
the maximum statutory limit for this expired, had not been lawful within the meaning
of Article 5 § 1 (c)

Right to be informed in a language that he understands [Article 5 (2)] – no breaches

Rights to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest and any charge [Article 5 (2)]
– no breaches

If arrested, right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by
law to exercise judicial power [Article 5 (3)] – no breaches

If arrested, right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial [Article 5
(3)]
Dervishi V. Croatia – (Decided Sept 2012) App No.67341/10 - reasons put forward by
the national courts for extending his pre-trial detention were not relevant and
sufficient, the length of his pre‑trial detention had been excessive - Article 5 § 3.
Osmanovic V. Croatia – (Decided June 2012) App no. 67604/10 - his detention was
unjustified there had been no circumstances that could justify the fear that he would
reoffend - Article 5 § 3.
Perica Oreb V. Croatia (Decided Oct 2013) App No. 20824/09 - the reasons relied on
by the national authorities for ordering and extending his detention could not be
regarded as relevant and sufficient - 5 § 3.
Orban V. Croatia (Decided Dec 2013) App No. 56111/12 - Authorities had failed to
provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention, failed to display
necessary diligence in the conduct of the proceedings - Article 5 § 3.
Margaretic V. Croatia (Decided June 2014) App No. 16115/13 - national courts had
acted arbitrarily when extending pre-trial detention, continued detention had been
excessive and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons - Article 5 § 3.

If arrested, right to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of detention, for this
to be decided speedily by a court and his release if the detention is not lawful [Article
5 (4)]
Osmanovic V. Croatia – (Decided June 2012) App no. 67604/10 – declaring the
applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible because he had no longer been
detained, did not satisfy the requirement of effectiveness of the review as required
under Article 5 § 4.
Perica Oreb V. Croatia (Decided Oct 2013) App No. 20824/09 - declaring the
applicant’s constitutional complaints inadmissible because a fresh decision extending
his detention had meanwhile been adopted did not satisfy the requirement “that the
circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford
applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy” - under Article 5 § 4.
Margaretic V. Croatia (Decided June 2014) App No. 16115/13 - the applicant was
denied access to the Constitutional Court in order to challenge the lawfulness and
reasonableness of his detention, the denial of judicial review of the applicant’s
detention on the sole basis that the applicant was at the time detained under a new
decision, was an unjustified restriction on his right to take proceedings under Article 5
§ 4.

Right to an enforceable right to compensation if arrested in contravention of the
provisions of Article 5 [Article 5 (5)] – no breaches
Article 6 (Right to a fair trial)

Right to a fair public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law [Article 6 (1)]
Lucic V. Croatia (Decided in Feb 2014) App No. 5699/11 - applicant had not had an
opportunity to examine a witness and that his conviction had been based to a
decisive extent on her evidence - Article 6 § 1.
Horvatic v. Croatia (Decided Oct 2014) App No. 36044/09 - the manner in which the
forensic evidence was obtained and packed during the investigation created a
procedural disadvantage to the applicant’s detriment, the proceedings as a whole fell
short of the requirements of a fair trial -Article 6 § 1.

Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty [Article 6 (2)]
Perica Oreb V.Croatia (Decided Oct 2013) App No. 20824/09 - repeatedly breached
the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent due to separate proceedings pending
concurrently - Article 6 § 2.

Right to be informed in a language that he understands [Article 6 (3) (a)] – no
breaches

Right to be informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation [Article 6 (3)
(a)] – no breaches

Right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence [Article 6
(3) (b)] – no breaches

Right to defend yourself through legal assistance of your own choosing [Article 6 (3)
(c)] – no breaches.
Petrina V. Croatia - (Decided Feb 2014) App No. 31379/10 - convicted in the criminal
proceedings without having had an opportunity to appear at the hearing, the trial was
held in the applicant’s absence – Article 6 § 3.

Right to legal aid if the defendant does not have sufficient means to pay for legal
assistance [Article 6 (3) (c)] – no breaches

Right to examine witnesses against you [Article 6 (3) (d)]
Topic V. Croatia- (Decided Oct 2013) App No.51355/10 - dismissing all requests by
the defence and accepting all the prosecution arguments and evidence, the trial court
created an unfair advantage in favour of the prosecution and deprived the applicant
of any practical opportunity to effectively challenge the charges against him -Article 6
§ 3 (d).

Right to have attendance and examination of witnesses on your behalf [Article 6 (3)
(d)] – no breaches

Right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak
the language [Article 6 (3) (e)] – no breaches
Section 2
Article 5 and 6 related criticism of Croatia over the past two years by international,
regional or domestic bodies (criminal cases only)
In this section we provide short summaries, with web-links to sources, of information
in the public domain showing the extent to which Article 5 and Article 6 rights been
raised. Such criticism has been made by:
(a) domestic bodies

Ministry of Justice updated their the Free Legal Aid section on their website to
show the continued changes which are being made since the passing of the Free
Legal Aid Act 2009 - http://www.mprh.hr/Default.aspx?sec=470
(b) NGO’s

Human Rights Europe - February 27, 2014
http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2014/02/croatia-court-backs-rape-trial-humanrights-protest/
Coverage of the Lučić V. Croatia case, regarding Article 6 § 1 and 3 (d) (right to a
fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses.)

Human Rights Watch – Country Report 2013
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/croatia?page=1
Accountability for war crimes - several sentences quashed due to trials being
conducted in absentia, a long-standing concern about war crimes cases heard in
local courts.

American Society of International Law - May 28, 2014
http://www.asil.org/blogs/grand-chamber-european-court-human-rights-upholdscroatian-prosecution-war-crimes-may-27-2014
Notable case where there was no violation of article 6 found where the same
judge sat in both sets of proceedings and or that Marguš complained he was
denied the opportunity to make a closing argument.
(c) Supranational organisations

EU Commission –European Commission for Democracy Through Law
(Venice Commission)
Report ‘The constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia and the Right to a Fair
Trial,’ May 2014
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDLJU(2014)002-e

US State Department – Croatia Report 2013
Found the treatment of prisoners was generally humane, overcrowding in the
prison system remained an acute problem. The judiciary continued to suffer from
a heavy backlog of cases.
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=
220264#wrapper

Council of Europe
Anti-torture Committee publishes report on Croatia, 2014
http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/hrv/2014-09-inf-eng.htm
Address detention conditions and treatment of people in prison.
Croatia government response - http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/hrv/2014-10-infeng.pdf
Press Report on the Report – concise explanation of what the report found and
recommended.
http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/CPT_Croatia_18mar14pr.pdf
Report Completed August 2014