CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5899/23 Duje ORDULJ against Croatia lodged on 25 January 2023 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ examination of the possibility of the applicant’s conditional release from juvenile detention. The applicant served a two years’ prison sentence on the basis of a final judgment. Under the domestic law, the competent court was to examine ex   officio , two months before the applicant would have served two thirds of his sentence, whether he could be granted conditional release. To that end, the applicant, who also had the right to lodge a request with the court to be considered for conditional release, lodged such a request with the Split County Court. His request was examined and granted only six months later. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State, seeking compensation for the damage sustained by judicial malpractice. He argued that the Split County Court had not only failed to timely decide on his request for conditional release from juvenile detention due to several procedural errors, but also failed to comply with its obligation to examine the possibility of conditional release of its own motion, all of which resulted in him being detained excessively long. His claim was finally dismissed by the domestic courts as unfounded. In particular, the appellate court considered that the relevant domestic provision on conditional release from juvenile detention was not entirely clear and that thus the Split County Court could not be held accountable for misinterpreting it. In any event there was no guarantee that the applicant would have been granted the conditional release had the matter been examined six months earlier. The applicant complains, relying on Article 5 of the Convention, about the lack of a speedy judicial review of his request for conditional release, arguing that as a result of the failure of the domestic courts to respect the relevant statutory time-limit he was kept in juvenile detention six months longer than necessary. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the domestic courts’ alleged failure to respect the statutory time-limit for examining the possibility of the applicant’s conditional release from juvenile detention, was his continued detention in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his detention lawful and not arbitrary (see Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no.   42750/09, §§ 126-132, ECHR 2013, and H.W. v. Germany , no. 17167/11, §§   74-91, 19 September 2013)?   2.     Was Article 5 § 4 of the Convention applicable to the situation in the present case? In particular, did the domestic law provide for a mandatory review of the need for the applicant’s continued detention (see Kafkaris v.   Cyprus (dec.), no. 9644/09, §§ 58-62, 21 June 2011)? If so, could it be said that the grounds justifying the applicant’s deprivation of liberty were susceptible to change with the passage of time? Which circumstances would have been relevant for granting a conditional release?   3.     If Article 5 § 4 of the Convention was applicable to the situation in the present case, did the length of the proceedings, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement thereof (see Mooren v.   Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, §§   106 ‑ 107, 9 July 2009)?   The parties are invited to submit to the Court references to the relevant domestic provisions and judicial practice, where available.