The European Court of Human Rights rejected the claim of Zdravko and Zoran Mamić that they did not have a fair trial in Croatia.
Both the Mamić brothers and the tax collector Milan Pernar filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that their right to a fair trial was violated in the case of money being taken from Dinamo.
It was about the process that was conducted in the court in Osijek.
After that trial, Zdravko Mamić was sentenced to six and a half years in prison, his brother Zoran to four years and two months, and Pernar to three years and two months in prison.
Pernar died in the meantime, and the Mamić brothers fled from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The European Court of Human Rights rejected all complaints about the Osijek trial.
What was concluded by the European Court of Human Rights
“The court considers it important to take into account the fact that the first and second applicants based their complaint that there was a violation of their right to an impartial court essentially on their own actions, which were at their core aimed at destroying that very right.”
He also considers it important to repeat that the right to a trial before an impartial court is of crucial importance and that the exercise of that right cannot depend only on the parties.
“Judges should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally adhere to those standards in order to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. Any breach of such standards undermines the confidence that courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public.
However, for the purpose of resolving the case, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the first and second applicants voluntarily agreed with the judges and, according to their own claims, gave them money and gifts… They only spoke about the situation after the conviction became final against them, and all other attempts to manipulate the procedure in their favor failed.”
The Court attaches fundamental importance to the fact that the first and second applicants essentially tried to create a “win-win” situation for themselves – either bribing the judges would work in their favor and the charges against them would be dropped or they would complain that the trial was unfair because of the corruption of the judges.
“The court cannot condone such behavior of the parties”
“The court cannot condone such behavior of the parties because it would allow manipulation and serious obstruction of the judicial system. In fact, without going into the question of the guilt or innocence of the first applicant and the second applicant and the respective judges in connection with the criminal acts of bribery and influence peddling for which they are accused, the very circumstances which the first applicant and the second applicant confirmed to the Court lead to the conclusion that after all their efforts to manipulate domestic procedures in their favor have failed, they now intend to use the human rights protection system according to the Convention and benefit from their own manipulative behavior at the domestic level,” concludes the ECtHR.
“Although the conduct of the first and second applicants, which constituted abuse, directly related to only one of several complaints under Article 6 of the Convention that were submitted to the government of the respondent state, the Court considers that their conduct, which was aimed at manipulation and serious obstructing the judicial system and exploiting the human rights protection system according to the Convention, in order to benefit from their own abuse at the domestic level, should have consequences when it comes to the admissibility of their entire requests,” the decision of the European Court of Human Rights states.
