CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIRST SECTION Application no. 80909/12 Mario STARČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 11 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mario Starčević, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Split. He is represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Babić, a lawyer practising in Split. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s father was killed in a road accident. On 20 December 2004 the Split Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Splitu ) asked the Split County Court ( Županijski sud u Splitu ) to open an investigation into the circumstances of his death. On 22 February 2005 the Split County Court declined to open the investigation on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed. The applicant was informed about this only on 6 July 2006 after he had inquired in the Split County Court about the progress of the case. As soon as he learned that the investigation was not opened, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ). On 19 September 2006 the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s appeal and ordered the investigation. After the investigation, on 24 November 2006 the applicant, acting as a subsidiary prosecutor, lodged a summary indictment before the Split Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Splitu ) against Z.K., who allegedly caused the road accident and the death of his father. During the entire 2007 and 2008 no procedural steps were taken in the case. On 18 June 2010 the Split County Court acquitted Z.K. on charges of causing the road accident. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Split County Court and on 17   May 2011 the Split County Court quashed the first-instance judgment because of a procedural error in the composition of the trial court finding that the proceedings had been conducted by a single judge instead of a three-judge panel. On 15 September 2011 the Split Municipal Court asked the applicant to specify his indictment. The relevant part of the letter reads: “Under Article 269 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the submission named summary indictment is returned to the [subsidiary] prosecutor so as to be amended under Article 268 § 1 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Namely, it is necessary that the subsidiary prosecutor indicates whether his submission is actually an indictment.” The applicant replied on 28 September 2009 indicating that his submission is an indictment ( optužnica ) and not a summary indictment ( optužni prijedlog ). On 30 November 2011 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the indictment had not been properly drafted in that it did not contain the reasoning. The applicant lodged an appeal on 9 December 2011 before the Split County Court contending that he had been invited to indicate whether he had instituted the proceedings by a summary indictment or an indictment and that he had accordingly replied to that question. He also pointed out that the courts had accepted his indictment in 2006, conducted the proceedings and decided the case on the merits. Together with the appeal, he also submitted an amended indictment containing short reasoning. On 17 April 2012 the Split County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 20   September 2012 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible on the grounds that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern the merits of any of the applicant’s rights. COMPLAINT The applicant complains about the lack of an effective procedure before the domestic authorities concerning the death of his relative. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Have the State authorities complied with their procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention concerning the death of the applicant’s relative?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.