SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 55430/16 Ivan KOBAÅ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 June 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Pauliine Koskelo , President , Lorraine Schembri Orland, Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 55430/16) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 September 2016 by a Croatian national, Mr Ivan Kobaš (“the applicant”), who was born in 1977 and lives in Zagreb and who was represented by Ms D. Vidović , a lawyer practising in Zagreb;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the unfairness of the summary minor-offence proceedings against the applicant to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns summary minor-offence proceedings against the applicant on charges of failure to report his residence address to the authorities.

2 . On 31 January 2015 the police issued a penalty notice finding the applicant guilty of the minor offence of not reporting his new address of residence and fining him 500 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 70 euros (EUR)). The applicant challenged the penalty notice before the court.

3. The applicant was then summoned to the court hearing on three occasions, but none of the summonses have ever been served on him, allegedly because service had been attempted to his presumed address. Ultimately, the summons for the last hearing scheduled for September 2015 was served on him by way of posting it at the court’s notice board, the court having concluded that the applicant had been avoiding service.

4. On 16 October 2015 the minor-offences court upheld the applicant’s conviction.

5. In a subsequent constitutional complaint, the applicant complained that the court had never heard him in person because of its failure to properly serve him the summons for the main hearing. The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded by a decision which was served on the applicant’s representative on 15 March 2016.

6. Before the Court, the applicant complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he had never been properly summoned to the court hearing which had resulted in his inability to present his defence.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

7. The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s preliminary objections, as the present case is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

8. The general principles concerning the right under Article 6 of the Convention to be present at the trial in cases concerning a criminal charge, which entails a duty of domestic courts to duly notify litigants of court hearings, have been summarised in Vyacheslav Korchagin v. Russia (no. 12307/16, §§ 58-65, 28 August 2018).

9 . The central issue in the present case is whether the applicant was properly summoned to the court hearing in the minor-offence proceedings against him.

10 . The Court notes that the applicant had been served with the penalty notice, which contained a warning that he was to inform the court of any change of address of his residence, failing which all the documents would be served on him by way of posting them at the court’s notice board. Having challenged the penalty notice before the minor-offences court, the applicant, who is a lawyer, was aware of the proceedings against him and could have expected that a trial would ensue. He also could have expected to be notified of any hearing in the case against him by way of summons.

11. Moreover, the Court notes that when the service of the summons had been attempted for the first time, the applicant did not have a registered address of residence. The service was thus attempted, in accordance with section 145 (6) 2 of the Minor Offences Act, to the applicant’s presumed address in relation to which the minor-offence proceedings had been conducted (see paragraph 2 above). What is more, in the course of the minor ‑ offence proceedings, the applicant registered a new address of residence, but did not notify the court thereof, considering that the court had the means to establish it of its own motion. Such a conduct was clearly in contradiction to his duty to notify the court of any change of address of his residence, of which he had been duly warned (see paragraph 10 above). The summons was thus ultimately posted at the court’s notice board in accordance with section 145 (5) of the Minor Offences Act, which provides that if a summons could not be served on a party to the proceedings because they failed to report to the court a change of address, or if particular circumstances point to their evidently avoiding service, the court shall post the summons on the court’s notice board.

12. It follows that the applicant was properly summoned to the court hearing and the fact that he did not attend the hearing was the result of his own lack of diligence. The minor-offence proceedings against him thus cannot be considered as unfair on this account.

13. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 29 June 2023.

Dorothee von Arnim Pauliine Koskelo Deputy Registrar President