Communicated on 18 December 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 35465/18 Loren IVANOŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 21 July 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns summary minor-offence proceedings against the applicant for a number of road traffic offences. On 30 June 2016 the police issued a penalty notice finding the applicant guilty of four road traffic minor offence and fining him 9,000 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately EUR 1,200). The applicant challenged the penalty notice before the court, in particular complaining that no penalty notice could have been issued against him since one of the minor offences he had been charged with entailed the possibility of a prison sentence. In the ensuing summary minor-offence proceedings, the applicant was heard and proposed hearing of three witnesses. He was not summoned to all hearings in the case, notably to the one where a defence witness and the police officer who had recorded the offences had been heard. On 24 July 2017, the minor-offences court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction, without replying to his argument concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the penalty notice. As there was no possibility for the applicant to appeal to a higher court in the summary minor-offence proceedings, he lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) ,. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as manifestly ill-founded.

The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the unfairness of the summary minor-offence proceedings against him. He alleges, in particular, that there had been no legal basis to issue a penalty notice against him or to try his case in summary proceedings, since one of the offences he had been charged with entailed a possibility of a prison sentence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular:

(a) were summary minor-offence proceedings conducted against him in line with the provisions of the domestic law? Have the domestic courts ever provide an explanation to the applicant ’ s arguments in this respect?

(b) were the guarantees of the right to a public hearing and to equality of arms, including the right to defend oneself in person and to cross-examine witnesses, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention, secured in the summary minor-offences proceedings against him?