Communicated on 8 September 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 30305/13 Ana SRÅ EN against Croatia lodged on 25 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ana Sršen , is a Croatian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Dubrovnik . She is represented before the Court by Mr G. Lujak , a lawyer practising in Dubrovnik .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 1 August 2007 the applicant and her husband were involved in a road traffic accident in which another person died.

Following the accident, there was an immediate response from the police, who attended the scene and ordered the applicant and her husband to take breathalyser test s in order to check for possible intoxication .

During the breathalyser test, the applicant was asked by the police whether she had been driving the car , and she confirmed that she had been. At that stage , she had not been given any instructions as to her right to legal assistance or her right to remain silent.

On 20 December 2007 the applicant was indicted in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Dubrovniku ) on charges of causing a road traffic accident with a fatal outcome.

The applicant pleaded not guilty and decided not to give evidence. Exercising his right to testimonial privilege, her husband likewise did not give evidence at trial.

On 10 June 2011 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to nine months ’ imprisonment. It found that her statement to the police during the breathalyser test was conclusive of the fact that she had been driving the car.

The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Dubrovnik County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Dubrovniku ). She argued, inter alia , that the evidence relating to the breathalyser test could only go towards the level of her intoxication , and could not be used as evidence of a confession that she had been driv ing the car , considering that the statement which she had given in this context had not been in accordance with the relevant procedural safeguards.

On 22 March 2012 the Dubrovnik County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as ill-founded, upholding the first-instance judgment. It held that the information obtained by the use of the breathalyser test was evidence which the police had lawfully obtained whilst acting within the scope of their authority to conduct such examinations.

The applicant challenged those findings by lodging an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ), which on 14 November 2012 dismissed her complaints as ill-founded, upholding the findings of the Dubrovnik County Court.

The applicant then brought her complaints before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), which on 14 February 2013 declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that she was que stioned by the police during the initial stages of the investigation without the benefit of legal advice, and that her privilege against self-incrimination was not properly observed.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was she questioned during the initial stages of the police in vestigation without the benefit of legal advice, and was her privilege against self-incrimination properly observed ?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.