Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

DIMOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

Doc ref: 40238/16 • ECHR ID: 001-222229

Document date: December 7, 2022

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 3

DIMOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

Doc ref: 40238/16 • ECHR ID: 001-222229

Document date: December 7, 2022

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 2 January 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 40238/16 Erika DIMOVIĆ and Others against Serbia lodged on 21 June 2016 communicated on 7 December 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 18 January 2012 the first-instance court in Subotica found the applicants guilty of attempted aggravated theft.

Both the applicants and the public prosecutor filed appeals against the first-instance judgment and replied to each other’s appeals. The Court of Appeal in Novi Sad failed to transmit to the applicants the public prosecutor’s reply to their appeal.

On 26 November 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ conviction but reduced their sentences, giving them, respectively, eight months’, four months’ and three months’ imprisonment. The applicants learnt about the content of the public prosecutor’s reply to their appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

In a decision of 26 November 2015 (served on the applicants on 26 January 2016), the Constitutional Court found the applicants’ ensuing complaint in that respect manifestly ill-founded, noting that the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code did not require second-instance courts to transmit the public prosecutor’s reply to the accused’s appeal to the accused in this type of proceedings.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were unfair and that their right to adversarial proceedings was breached.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicants have a fair hearing before the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of the principles of equality of arms and/or of adversarial proceedings considering the fact that the prosecutor’s reply to defence statements of appeal had not been forwarded to the defence (see Zahirović v. Croatia , no. 58590/11, § 42, 25 April 2013; Maravić Markeš v. Croatia , no. 70923/11, § 46 9 January 2014; and Hrdalo v. Croatia , no. 23272/07, §§ 34-40, 27 September 2011)?

APPENDIX

List of applicants

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.Erika DIMOVIĆ

1975Serbian

ÄŒantavir

2.Roža DIMOVIĆ

1971Serbian

ÄŒantavir

3.Magdalena KOLOMPAR

1987Serbian

ÄŒantavir

4.Đenđi KOVAČ

1983Serbian

ÄŒantavir

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846