Published on 12 February 2024

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 9554/22 Zoran MILANOVIČ against Croatia lodged on 14 February 2022 communicated on 26 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns minor-offence proceedings against the applicant, a Slovenian national, who was found guilty in 2016 under section 73 (1) of the Aliens Act for committing a minor offence of procuring work of two other Slovenian nationals without obtaining a prior residence and work permit, or work registration certificate, and fined with 6,000 kunas (approximately 796 euros).

In particular, it appears from the reasoning of the first-instance judgment, which was upheld by the High Minor Offences Court, that the applicant was found guilty because the workers in question had not obtained A1 forms prior to commencing work, which would have allowed them to work unrestrictedly in the territory of Croatia for up to 90 days without having to obtain a residence and work permit. In the course of the proceedings before the domestic courts the applicant maintained that, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, Slovenian workers were allowed to provide temporary or occasional services in Croatia without having to obtain a residence and work permit, or work registration certificate. In support of the above, he relied on a letter sent by the Croatian Ministry of Labour and Pension System to the Slovenian Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, dated 24 October 2013.

The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, that the domestic courts failed to examine of their own motion whether the provisions of the Aliens Act which they had relied on had been applicable to the facts of the case, and held instead that it was the applicant who should have proven that this was not the case.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Hüseyin Turan v. Turkey , no. 11529/02, §§ 17-21, 4 March 2008)? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, are the decisions of the domestic courts sufficiently reasoned with regard to the legal basis for the applicant’s conviction (see, for instance, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017, and , mutatis mutandis , Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, § 27, 9 April 2013)?

2. Was the minor offence for which the applicant was convicted of a criminal character, thus attracting the guarantees of Article 7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Pantalon v. Croatia , no. 2953/14, §§ 25‑33, 19 November 2020)? If so, did the applicant’s conviction under the Alien’s Act run counter to the principle of legality under Article 7 of the Convention (see, for instance, Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, §§ 50-53, ECHR 2015, and Pantalon , cited above, §§ 45-54)?