FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 27091/11 Ivan PAPEŽ against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Ann Power-Forde , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Helena Jäderblom , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Secti o n Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2011 ,

Having regard to the comments submitted by Slovenian Government

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Ivan Papež , is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Mirna Peč . He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Poljanec from Slovenska Bistrica .

2. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič , State Attorney .

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 15 January 2009 the police fined the applicant 240 euros (EUR) for not wearing a seatbelt and for talking on the mobile phone while driving.

5 . On 22 January 2009 the applicant pa id the fine concerning the use of the mobile phone while driving but lodged a request for judicial review contesting the police ’ s findings that his seatbelt had not been fastened. In this regard, he submitted the written statements of two witnesses who were present in his car at the time of the offence. He also requested to be present at the hearing of the police officer who had fined him if the judge decided to hold an oral hearing.

6 . On 13 August 2010 the Novo Mesto Local Court invited the applicant to the hearing of two police officers. The Government submitted a statement of service according to which on 23 August 2010 the applicant was informed of the hearing of the police officers.

7. On 13 September 2010 the local c ourt heard the police officers. The applicant was not present. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the hearing.

8. On 16 September 2010 the local c ourt rejected the applicant ’ s request for judicial review on the basis of the hearing of the police officers and the written statement of the witnesses proposed by the applicant.

9. On 8 November 2010 the applicant lodged a motion for reinstatement .

10. On 18 November 2010 the local court rejected the motion, which it deemed to be an appeal, as inadmissible.

11. On 3 November 2010 the applicant appealed against this decision.

12. On 17 February 2011 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected his appeal.

13 . On 3 November 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.

14 . On 19 November 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional appeal as inadmissible .

B. Relevant domestic law

15 . For the relevant provisions of the Minor Offences A ct , see Suhadolc v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011) and Flisar v. Slovenia (no. 3127/09, §§ 13-16, 29 September 2011).

COMPLAINT

16. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair and adversarial trial . In particular, he complained that there had been no public hearing and that he could not examine witnesses on his behalf .

THE LAW

17. The Court finds it appropriate to examine the case under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Guerra and Others v. Italy , 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I).

18. The applicant alleged that he could not contest the statements of the police officers who had fined him since he had not been informed of the fact that they were to be heard , and that he could not examine the witnesses he proposed .

19. The Government argued that in his request for judicial review the applicant requested only a hearing and confrontation with the police officers who had established the offence, but he had failed to request his own hearing and taking of other evidence. Furthermore, the applicant could have presented evidence on his behalf at the hearing of 13 September 2010 , but in his appeal he did not provide any justification why he was not present at the hearing. Thus, he failed to take the opportunity to attend the hearing of the police officers, where he could have challenged the veracity of their allegations. According to the Government the local c ourt ’ s assessment of the statements of the police officers was convincing and no further hearing of the passengers in the applicant ’ s car was necessary.

20 . The applicant did not contest the Government ’ s view .

21. The Court recalls the principles on the adversarial trial guarantees under paragraphs 3 (c) and (d) of Article 6 in minor offences ’ proceedings as set out in Mesesnel v. Slovenia ( no. 22163/08 , §§ 34-35 , 2 8 February 2013 ) . The Court makes further reference to the general principles concerning the waiver of the guarantees of a fair trial set out in Hermi v. Italy ( [GC], no. 18114/02 , §§ 73-76, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII).

22. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that in his request for judicial review the applicant contested certain findings of fact and he expressed the wish to be informed of the examination of the police officers that had personally observed the offences. The Government has provided a proof of service according to which the applicant was duly informed of the hearing of the police officers that he wanted to examine. The applicant did not contest this evidence and he provided no explanation for his absence during the hearing. Nor in his motion for reinstatement and constitutional appeal he provided any justification. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the applicant was informed in good time of the proceedings against him and of the date of the hearing (see, a contrario , Mesesnel v. Slovenia , cited above, §§ 37-39) .

23. Having regard to all material in its possession, the Court considers that the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde              Deputy Registrar President