Model	Facts
5. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Split.
6. On 19 May 2011 the applicant and several other individuals (see, for further information, Šoš v. Croatia, no. 26211/13, § 17, 1 December 2015) were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and detained under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges).
7. During the investigation, an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županjski sud u Splitu) several times extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges). The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the case of Šoš (cited above, §§ 20 and 23).
8. On 18 August 2011 the investigating judge extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). He found that all the relevant witnesses had been questioned and that there was no further possibility of remanding the suspects in detention on the grounds of the risk of collusion. As to the other grounds relied upon for the pre-trial detention, the investigating judge reiterated his previous findings.
9. The investigating judge relied on the same reasons extending the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects in the further course of the investigation. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 28, 31, 36 and 41).
10. On 16 May 2012 the applicant and nine other individuals were indicted on charges of drug trafficking in the Split County Court.
11. Following the submission of the indictment, on 18 May 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused relying on Article 123 § 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending) and seriousness of charges). His pre-trial detention was extended several times on the same grounds. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 44, 47 and 52).
12. On 20 February 2013 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republik Hrvatske), acting as a court of appeal, found that the applicant's detention should be extended only under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). It explained that the 2013 amendments to the Criminal Code provided that the offence at issue was punishable by a prison sentence of between three and fifteen years and no longer by long-term imprisonment. It was therefore not possible to remand the applicant on the grounds of the seriousness of the charges since the possibility of imposing a sentence of long-term imprisonment was one of the conditions for extending pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seriousness of charges).
13. On 20 April 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending), without changing its previous reasoning.
14. On 17 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the maximum two-year statutory time-limit for the applicant's pre-trial detention under Article 133 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a further six months (until 19 November 2013) relying on section 35(2) of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime Act (hereinafter "the OSCOCA").
15. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that section 35(2) of the OSCOCA was inapplicable to his case since he was not detained during the investigation.
16. On 7 June 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on the grounds that the said provision of the OSCOCA made a mistaken reference to Article 130 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also considered that the cited provision was incomprehensible since, if understood as provided in that Act, it merely repeated paragraph 1 of section 35 of the OSCOCA, which would be obsolete. Instead it should be interpreted in line with the previous abrogated version of the OSCOCA, which in its section 28(3) had provided for a possibility of extension of the overall maximum period of detention for a further six months, which was in the applicant's case until 19 November 2013.
17. On 18 June 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republik Hrvatske) reiterating his previous arguments.
18. On 11 July 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint as unfounded, endorsing the reasoning of the Supreme Court.
19. The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended, under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending), until the maximum period expired on 19 November 2013, when he was released.