CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .s28108232 { width:142.78pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 50632/21 Zvonko BUŠIĆ against Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23   October 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström, President   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   50632/21) 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”) on 9 October 2021 by a Croatian national, Mr Zvonko Bušić (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Obrovac and was represented by Mr B. Grgić, a lawyer practising in Zadar; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 § 1 and Article   6   §   1 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of proceedings for the enforcement of a prison sentence imposed on the applicant to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns proceedings for the enforcement of a prison sentence imposed on the applicant by a final criminal court judgment. 2.     On 5 February 2015 the applicant was found guilty of attempted theft and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment, which was replaced by community service. The judgment became final on 24 June 2015. 3.     The applicant failed to perform his community service and on 6 July 2021 the Zadar County Court’s sentence-execution judge instructed him to report to the relevant authority in order to start serving his prison sentence. 4.     The applicant appealed against the decision, relying on the Supreme Court’s case-law and arguing that the enforcement of his prison sentence had become time-barred. 5.     On 26 July 2021 the Zadar County Court’s appeal panel dismissed the appeal as unfounded. 6.     Following the above-mentioned decisions, the applicant on several occasions successfully asked for a postponement of the enforcement of his prison sentence for personal and professional reasons. 7.     In his application lodged with the Court on 9 October 2021, the applicant complained, under Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the domestic courts’ decisions enforcing his prison sentence had been contrary to the domestic law and arbitrary. 8.     On 25 March 2022 the Government were given notice of those complaints. 9.     Meanwhile, on 24 March 2022 the Zadar County Court’s sentence ‑ execution judge gave a decision establishing that the applicant’s prison sentence could not be enforced on account of the expiry of the statutory limitation period. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 10.     In their observations of 5 September 2022, the Government informed the Court of the Zadar County Court’s decision of 24 March 2022 and noted that the applicant had never been deprived of his liberty. They invited the Court to (a) reject his application on the grounds of abuse of the right of petition under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, as he had failed to inform the Court of an important development, (b) declare his complaints inadmissible on the grounds that he was not a victim of the violations complained of, and/or (c) declare his complaint under Article 6 inadmissible on the grounds that Article   6 did not apply to proceedings concerning the enforcement of a prison sentence. 11.     The applicant replied that his rights had already been breached before the decision of 24 March 2022, which, furthermore, had only been delivered in order to stop his case before the Court. Had he not lodged his application, he would have been detained on the basis of arbitrary decisions. The proceedings complained of had also caused him damage and costs. 12.     The Court finds that, having regard to the fact that the applicant was never actually detained following the decisions instructing him to start serving his prison sentence, Article 5 of the Convention is not applicable to his complaint (see, for instance, Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Hodžić v. Croatia , no. 28932/14, § 36, 4   April 2019). 13.     It follows that the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 14.     As concerns the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged arbitrariness of the domestic courts’ decisions instructing the applicant to start serving his prison sentence, the Court notes that, in addition to the fact that the applicant was never actually detained in order to serve his prison sentence, he no longer runs any risk of being detained, because the competent domestic court has in the meantime established that the enforcement of his prison sentence has become time-barred. 15.     It follows that the circumstances complained of by the applicant under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention no longer obtain and that the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have been redressed (compare Leblon v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34046/96, 1 June 1999, in which the Court, in deciding to strike the application out of its list of cases, considered it relevant that the decision which had been challenged and subsequently set aside had not been executed). 16.     Accordingly, both conditions for the application of Article   37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the matter has been resolved (see,   for example,   Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 41, 24   October 2002), have been met. 17.     The Court further reiterates that for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention it is not required that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (see, for example, Vadalà v. Italy   (dec.), no.   14656/15, § 36, 7 November 2023, and the cases cited therein). 18.     The matter giving rise to the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention can thus in any event be considered to have been “resolved” within the meaning of Article   37   §   1 (b) of the Convention. No reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1   in fine . The application should therefore be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in so far as it concerns this complaint. 19.     In view of these conclusions, the Court does not find it necessary to examine any of the Government’s objections as to inadmissibility. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   § 1 (b) of the Convention as regards the complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 November 2025.     Liv Tigerstedt   Erik Wennerström   Deputy Registrar   President