CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8AFEDED4 { width:305.84pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C0F06CF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   6 May 2010     THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 14889/08, 55925/08, 57655/08, 3127/09, 10390/09 against Slovenia lodged on 21 March 2008, 12 November 2008, 24 November 2008, 7   January 2009, 10 February 2009   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS 1.     All the applicants are Slovenian nationals. Application no. 14889/08 was lodged by Mr Luka Marguč, who was born in 1984 and lives in Slovenske Konjice. Application no. 55925/08 was lodged by Mr Pavel Brus, who was born in 1955 and lives in Spodnja Idrija. Application no. 57655/08 was lodged by Mr Uroš Suhadolc, who was born in 1961 and lives in Slovenj Gradec. Application no. 3127/09 was lodged by Mr Borut Franc Flisar, who was born in 1968 and lives in Martjanci. Application no.   10390/09 was lodged by Mr Božo Berdajs, who was born in 1978 and lives in Šmartno pri Litiji. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The present cases concern proceedings instituted as a result of the administrative offences allegedly committed by the applicants. In all of them, the applicants did not have an oral hearing. Currently, there are about 340 similar applications pending before the Court. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Application no. 14889/08 3.     On 24 April 2006 the applicant was driving a car near the town of Zreče where an officer using a laser machine for measuring speed identified his speed as 67 km/h. The speed limit was 50 km/h. After being invited to submit a written statement concerning this event, the applicant disputed the findings and the use of the laser machine and invoked his right to a fair trial. On 27 June 2006 the Slovenjske Konjice Police issued a decision. The applicant was found to have committed an offence of driving over the speed limit and given a fine of approximately 120 euros and one penalty point. He was also reminded that if he did not pay the fine, the police would request a court to impose imprisonment for non-payment (see paragraphs 44-46 below). The applicant was also ordered to pay approximately 60 euros for the costs of the proceedings. 4.     Subsequently, the applicant lodged a request for judicial protection alleging a violation of fair trial guarantees and disputing the findings of the police officer and his competence to use the laser machine. 5.     The Slovenjske Konjice Local Court rejected the request as unsubstantiated on 17   August   2006. It found in particular that the facts had been properly established by the police officer, who possessed the necessary qualifications. The judgment contained a notice informing the applicant that it could be challenged in an appeal, which the applicant subsequently lodged. However, on 16 March 2007, the Celje Higher Court dismissed it, finding that the law did not provide for an appeal in cases such as his. 6.     The applicant then lodged a constitutional appeal alleging a violation of fair trial guarantees. It was dismissed on 24 September 2007. In dismissing the constitutional appeal the Constitutional Court relied on point three of the first paragraph of section 55b, read together with point four of the second paragraph of section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act. 7.     On 28 May 2008 the Slovenjske Konjice Local Court, noting that the applicant had failed to pay the fine within the set time-limit, issued a decision ordering the applicant's imprisonment for non-payment. The applicant was also informed that he could, until the commencement of the prison sentence, request that the fine be replaced by community service. 8.     The applicant lodged an objection in which he stated, inter alia , that the police should not have been a body imposing a penalty as they were a part of the executive power and that his defence rights had been violated in the procedure. The objection was rejected by the same court on 7 July 2008. The court found that the police's decision imposing a fine had become enforceable on 13 July 2007. It noted that the purpose of the proceedings for imposing a prison sentence was the enforcement of a fine and that the court could not therefore consider the applicant's allegations concerning the main proceedings. 9.     The applicant's appeal against the above decision was rejected by the Celje Higher Court on 2 September 2008. The latter found that the appeal was unsubstantiated and noted that the applicant should have, inter alia , submitted facts and evidence, such as medical certificates, to demonstrate that the prison sentence would not be appropriate. 10.     On 20 October 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal on the same grounds as in the first set of proceedings (see paragraph 6 above). 2.     Application no. 55925/08 11.     On 24 January 2007 the applicant, who runs a transport business, received a payment order from the police dated 10 November 2006 imposing a fine of 4,172 euros on his company and a fine of 417 euros on him on the grounds that his company had been responsible for an administrative offence under section 111, paragraph 1, of the Road Traffic Safety Act, namely the use of a road for a purpose other than traffic. 12.     On 26 January 2007 the applicant lodged a request for judicial protection. He denied that any offence had been committed and maintained that the payment order contained no information about the circumstances of the offence allegedly committed. He mentioned that he had received a request from the police prior to the issuing of the payment order requesting him to submit information about seven of his drivers who had driven trucks in Ljubljana during demonstrations on 10   November 2006 at 8.30 a.m. The applicant, referring to section 23, paragraph 1, point 86 of the Road Traffic Safety Act (see paragraph 47 below), claimed that the trucks had been driving on the road as they would have been on any other day and that the road in question had always been very busy at that time of the day. Therefore no offence had been committed. 13.     The Ljubljana Local Court found in its judgment of 4 June 2008 that the applicant had undoubtedly ordered the trip and had not submitted anything that would raise doubts as to the correct establishment of the facts by the police, such as proof that the trucks had at the time in question been driving on the road for purposes other than a demonstration. The court based its decision on the facts established by the police and relied chiefly on the fact that one specific driver employed by the applicant had been driving on the road at the relevant time. However, it upheld the applicant's request in part and changed the classification of the offence. The applicant was now found to be responsible for the offence of causing obstacles on the road in breach of section 123 of the Road Traffic Safety Act. The court rejected the remainder of the request. There is a discrepancy between the operative part of the judgment, which refers to paragraph 10 of section 123, and the reasoning, which refers to paragraph 9 of the same section. However, the applicant was then fined 208 euros. 14.     The applicant did not lodge a constitutional appeal. 3.     Application no. 57655/08 15.     On 12 May 2006 the applicant was stopped on the road near the town of Kranjska Gora for speeding. The speed of the car was measured by a special laser machine and was shown as 76km/h. The speed limit was 50   km/h. In addition, the applicant was asked to undergo a test for measuring alcohol level in his breath, which showed 0.39 ml/l. The applicant was informed that he had been charged with committing two road traffic offences, namely the offences of driving in excess of the speed limit and driving under the influence of alcohol. He was barred from continuing to drive and his driving licence was temporarily suspended. After being invited to submit a written statement concerning these events, the applicant disputed the use of electronic equipment for measuring speed and alcohol level in his case. On 8 August 2006 the Kranjska Gora Police issued a decision. The applicant was found to have committed the two offences and was fined approximately 400 euros with seven penalty points. He was also reminded that if he did not pay the fine, the police would request a court to impose imprisonment for non-payment. The applicant was also ordered to pay approximately 80 euros for the costs of proceedings. 16.     Subsequently, the applicant lodged a request for judicial protection alleging a violation of fair trial guarantees and disputing the findings of the officers, their competence to use the laser machine and the appropriateness of the methods used to measure the speed of the car and the level of alcohol in his blood. 17.     The Jesenice Local Court rejected the request on 15 April 2008. It found that the officers had been qualified to make use of the laser machine, it having been demonstrated that the machine had complied with the applicable regulations. As regards the alcohol test, the court noted that a report had been prepared in this respect by the officers and signed by the applicant on the spot. Finally, the court also found that the impugned payment order had not violated the offender's constitutional rights as it had been issued in accordance with the applicable laws. He was ordered to pay 90 euros for the costs of the proceedings. 18.     The applicant then lodged a constitutional appeal alleging a violation of fair trial guarantees. It was dismissed on 26 May 2008. In dismissing the constitutional appeal the Constitutional Court relied on point three of the first paragraph of section 55b, read together with point four of the second paragraph of section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act. 4.     Application no. 3127/09 19.     On 2 October 2006 the applicant was fined approximately 625 euros by the police for the offence of violent and precarious behaviour. The police found that the applicant had been violent against his half-sister, having grabbed her neck and slapped her on her face. He was fined on the spot. Four days later, he received a written notice of the payment order issued by the police. It would appear that this notice contained no facts or evidence substantiating the payment order. In his application to the Court the applicant maintained that he had had a sort of agreement with the officers, who had said that once the applicant challenged the payment order they would say that he had been provoked. He alleged that he had actually helped the officers and was unjustifiably implicated in the situation. 20.     On 13 October 2006 the applicant lodged an objection and a request for judicial protection. He alleged that his sister had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and had threatened and offended his mother and other people who were around, including the police officers. He also explained that she had taken her child away in the car and had returned without him, refusing for a while to say where she had left him. In these circumstances, the applicant, fearing for his sister and the child, had gently grabbed her neck but had not slapped her. She had then revealed the whereabouts of the child and one of the officers had gone with her to pick him up. In accordance with section 63 of the Administrative Offences Act the police forwarded the request for judicial protection to the Murska Sobota Local Court. 21.     On 26 May 2008 the Murska Sobota Local Court issued a judgment in which, relying on section 65 of the Administrative Offences Act, it rejected the applicant's request for judicial protection as unsubstantiated, and upheld the payment order. The applicant was ordered to pay 62 euros for the costs of the proceedings. 22.     As explained in the judgment, the court based its decision on the payment order and the police report concerning the event, which the police submitted to the court at the same time as the request for judicial protection. The court found that: “the conduct of the offender against his sister which was observed by the police officers personally and directly .... is unjustified regardless of her mental and health condition, which therefore leads the court to conclude that this [the request for judicial protection] is only an attempt to avoid payment of the fine, since the court has no doubts as to the officers' findings.” 23.   The applicant then lodged a constitutional appeal alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated. Relying on point three of the first paragraph of section 55b, read together with point four of the second paragraph of section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal on 25 August 2008. 5.     Application no. 10390/09 24.     On 14 April 2007 the applicant was driving a truck near Ivančna Gorica. He was stopped by the police on suspicion of having loaded the cargo in breach of applicable road traffic rules. The police asked the applicant to weigh the truck but he then started to unload it, explaining that he had been so instructed by his superior. The police found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence on account of his non-compliance with police instructions to weigh the truck and imposed a fine of 2,503 euros. Subsequently, a written notice of the payment order issued by the police was sent to the applicant. 25.     The applicant challenged the payment order in a request for judicial protection in which he mostly claimed that his constitutional rights, in particular fair trial guarantees, had been violated by the fact that his conduct had been punished by the police, not a court, and that the offence had not been clearly specified by the police. 26.     His request was rejected by the Ljubljana Local Court on 20   August   2008. He was ordered to pay 100 euros for the costs of the proceedings. 27.     The court examined the payment order and the police report concerning the event. In its judgment, it found as follows: “[t]he court has no doubt about the police findings, as it does not see any reason why the police would issue a payment order for an offence which was not committed. The purpose of a penalty is precisely to penalise the driver who committed an offence and not a driver who did not commit an offence.... With his general allegations, the offender did not raise any doubts as to the correctness of the establishment of the facts by the police.” 28.     The court also found that the impugned payment order had not violated the offender's constitutional rights as it had been issued in accordance with the applicable laws. 29.     The applicant then lodged a constitutional appeal alleging a violation of fair trial guarantees. It was dismissed on 24 September 2008. In dismissing the constitutional appeal the Constitutional Court relied on point three of the first paragraph of section 55b read together with point four of the second paragraph of section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     The 2002 Administrative Offences Act 30.     Prior to 1 January 2005, proceedings concerning administrative offences were regulated by the   1983   Administrative Offences Act (Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia no. 25/1983 with amendments). First-instance proceedings were then conducted by misdemeanour judges. Appeals against their decisions were dealt with by judicial panels for administrative offences. 31.     In 2002 the Ministry of Justice prepared a new draft law which was aimed at a complete reform in the field. As stated in the explanatory memorandum to the draft law, the reform was necessary because of the heavy workload in the courts' sections dealing with administrative offences and the need to bring the legislation up to date. The 2002 Administrative Offences Act ( Zakon o prekrških , the “AOA”, Official Gazette no. 7/2003) was therefore enacted in the Slovenian Parliament on 18   December   2002. It came into force on 7   February 2003 and started to be implemented from 1   January 2005. 32.     Under section 6 of the AOA, administrative offence means any act that is against the law, or is in breach of a Government regulation or local self-government ordinance, and which is, as such, designated as a punishable administrative offence. While the AOA contains some specific provisions concerning the elements of an administrative offence and responsibility for it, it also refers to the provisions of the Penal Code which should be applied mutatis mutandis in the procedure for administrative offences. In addition, the principle of the presumption of innocence is included in the AOA, which in section 7 states that “persons accused of having committed administrative offences are innocent until their responsibility is established by a final decision”. 33.     The AOA provides for sanctions in respect of administrative offences, namely a fine, a warning, penalty points which can lead to withdrawal of a driving licence, a ban on driving, deportation and seizure of items (sections   17-25 of the AOA). (a) Summary procedure 34.     The significant difference between the old and the new system is the introduction by the AOA of a summary procedure ( hitri postopek ), which is conducted by the administrative authorities (part of the executive), such as inspectorates and the police. 35.     The administrative authority starts the procedure ex officio or upon a request. If the offender did not have an opportunity to reply to the charges when the offence was recorded or considered by the authority, the latter, before issuing a decision, invites him to submit a written reply. The decision should include a short reference to the defendant's statement and facts and evidence on which it is based. It must also include a warning as to the possibility of imprisonment for non-payment (sections 49-58). 36.     In cases where an officer observes the commission of the offence, or where the latter is established by special technical equipment (section 57 of the AOA), the authority issues the “payment order” ( plačilni nalog ). The payment order has the same effect as the authority's decision. 37.     The payment order is also issued immediately on the spot when there is a breach of regulations concerning public order, road safety, public gatherings, aliens and State borders. In these latter cases, however, an individual cannot directly lodge a request for judicial protection but must first lodge an objection with the authority (section 57a of the AOA). 38.     The summary procedure is used as a rule, subject to the following exceptions: cases where another person has been injured; offences where an additional sentence can be imposed; cases where an additional sentence of banning further driving is envisaged; cases where a pecuniary claim or a minor is involved or which concern military duties; or cases where an additional sentence of penalty points which are sufficient to lead to the withdrawal of a driving licence is envisaged (section 52 of the AOA). These cases are dealt with by the courts for misdemeanours in regular judicial proceedings ( redni sodni postopek ) in which the Criminal Procedure Act is applied mutatis mutandis . In these judicial proceedings the defendant has a right to be heard orally by the judge, to adduce evidence, make procedural requests and to appeal against the judgment (sections 67-168 of the AOA). (b) Request for judicial protection 39.     After the summary procedure, judicial protection is to be ensured through the possibility of lodging a request for judicial protection which is dealt with by a single judge at a court for misdemeanours that is normally a local court (sections 59-66 of the AOA). 40.     The defendant has a right to lodge a request for judicial protection within eight days from the receipt of the administrative authority's decision concerning the administrative offence, including a payment order. By lodging such a request, the defendant renounces his possibility of paying the reduced fine. In addition, the request, in principle, suspends the payment of the fine. 41.     The request can be lodged on standard appeal grounds (a violation of procedural or substantive law, erroneous or insufficient establishment of facts, and a challenge to the sanction). It should be filed with the administrative authority that issued a decision. If the authority considers that the request is well-founded, it may annul or change its decision. If not, it sends the file and any additional evidence to the court (section 63 of the AOA). 42.     The judge decides on the admissibility and merits of the request on the basis of the file received from the administrative authority. Under section 65 of the AOA, the judge may reject the request in a judgment, if there is no need for further fact-finding and if the above-mentioned appeal grounds are not established – this is done without hearing the applicant. If a violation of procedural or substantive law is established or if further fact-finding is required, the judge quashes the decision and decides on the case in regular judicial proceedings to which the accused and the authority that issued the impugned decision are parties (see paragraph 38 above). If the judge finds that the significant facts were correctly established but that a different sanction should be imposed, he may uphold the request in part and change the administrative authority's decision accordingly. 43.     An appeal to the Higher Court can be lodged on all grounds against a first-instance court's decision dismissing the request as inadmissible and against the judgment by which the administrative authority's decision has been changed to the defendant's disadvantage following additional fact-finding. In addition, an appeal can be lodged on all grounds except factual ones against a decision imposing a fine higher than the minimum amount or ordering a seizure of items worth more than 400 euros. (c) Imprisonment for non-payment 44.     When a fine is imposed but remains partly or entirely unpaid, the convicted person will be given a substitute penalty of imprisonment. The convicted person may be imprisoned until the fine is paid, but in no event may such imprisonment exceed thirty days. The imprisonment does not exempt the offender from the obligation to pay the fine (section 202b of the AOA). 45.     Imprisonment for non-payment can only be imposed by a court. The latter orders imprisonment of its own motion or on the request of the court or the administrative authority which issued a decision imposing the fine. The convicted person can lodge an objection against the court's decision imposing imprisonment and can request that the fine be replaced by community service. The objection is considered by the same court, which can decide to hold a hearing if that is considered necessary to establish the convicted person's economic situation or other facts that may be important for a decision concerning the objection. An appeal lies against the decision rejecting the objection. 46.     The measure of imprisonment for non-payment is not available when the fine was imposed by a payment order or if the convicted person is a minor. 2.     The Road Traffic Safety Act 47.   The relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Act ( Zakon o varnosti cestnega prometa , Official Gazette no. 3/2004, implemented from 1 January 2005) read as follows: Section 23 (terminology) “(1) Terms used in this Act shall have the following meanings ... 86. Road traffic is the traffic of vehicles, pedestrians, and other participants on public roads and unclassified roads, which are used for public road traffic.” Section 111 (use of road) “(1) A road can only be used for road traffic. For other purposes it can only be used when so provided by the regulations concerning public roads. ... (8) A company or a sole trader acting in breach of the first or third paragraph shall be fined a minimum of SIT 1,000,000. The person in charge shall be fined a minimum of SIT 100,000.” Section 123 (obstacles to road traffic) “... (2) A person responsible for creating an obstacle, which is not a consequence of an unpredictable event, must have permission issued by a competent authority. (3) A person who, without permission, creates an obstacle on the road, must remove it immediately..... ... (9) A fine of SIT 40,000 shall be imposed on an individual who acts in breach of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of this section. (10) A minimum fine of SIT 500,000 shall be imposed on a company and sole trader who acts in breach of the second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh paragraphs of this section; the person in charge shall be fined a minimum of SIT 50,000.” 3.     The Constitutional Court Act 48.     The Constitutional Court Act ( Zakon o ustavnem sodišču , Official Gazette no. 15/1994) was adopted on 8 March 1994. Initially, the Act did not exclude particular categories, but included only a general principle that an appeal was inadmissible if it did not concern an important legal issue and if an alleged violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms did not have significant consequences for the complainant. 49.     On 30 May 2007 the Slovenian Parliament adopted an amendment to the Constitutional Court Act which limited the availability of the constitutional appeal by, inter alia , excluding the possibility of challenging decisions issued in proceedings concerning administrative offences. However, it included a principle that such cases could, exceptionally, be examined if they raised important constitutional questions extending beyond a concrete case. The amendment came into force on 15   July   2007. The relevant provisions of the amended Act read as follows: Section 50 “(1) A constitutional appeal alleging a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms may, under the conditions determined by this Act, be lodged against individual acts by which state authorities, local authorities, or holders of public power have decided rights, obligations, or legal interests of individuals or legal entities. ...” Section 54 “(1) The Constitutional Court decides in a panel of three Constitutional Court judges (hereinafter referred to as a panel) at a closed session whether to initiate proceedings on the basis of a constitutional appeal.” Section 55a “(1) A constitutional appeal shall not be admissible if the violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms did not have significant consequences for the complainant. (2) It is deemed that there has been no violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms having significant consequences for the complainant with regard to individual decisions: - issued in small-claims disputes ...; - concerning costs of proceedings, where such decision alone is challenged in the constitutional appeal; - issued in trespass to property disputes; - issued in administrative offence cases. (3) Irrespective of the preceding paragraph, the Constitutional Court may in particularly justified cases decide exceptionally on a constitutional appeal against the individual decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph, in particular where the decision appealed against concerns an important constitutional question which goes beyond the importance of the actual case.” Section 55b “(1) A constitutional appeal shall be rejected: - if it does not concern an individual act by which a state authority, local authority, or a holder of public power decided on the rights, obligations or legal interest of the complainant; - if the complainant does not have a legal interest in a decision on the constitutional appeal; - if it is not admissible, except in the instance referred to in the third paragraph of the preceding section; - if it was not lodged in due time; ... (2) A constitutional appeal shall be accepted for consideration: - if there has been a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms which has had significant consequences for the complainant; or - if it concerns an important constitutional question which goes beyond the importance of the actual case. (3) ...” COMPLAINTS A.     Applications no.   14889/08 and no. 57655/08 50.     The applicants complain under Article 6 that the police, who took the decisions in their cases, did not constitute an independent tribunal established by law but a body within the executive branch. 51.     They also complain that there was no public hearing in their cases and that there was a breach of their right to the presumption of innocence. They did not have an opportunity to defend themselves in person or to adduce evidence in their favour. The court's judgment was based solely on the police file. In addition, no appeal lies against the court's judgment, in breach of Article 13 and Article   6 in the part that guarantees access to a court. 52. Referring to Lauko v. Slovakia (2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VI), the applicants complain under Articles 6 and 13 that the Constitutional Court declined to deal with their constitutional appeal and based its decision on section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act, which came into force after the event concerned in the constitutional appeal, and in case no. 14889/08 after the constitutional appeal had been lodged. They argue that this decision of the Constitutional Court denied them access to a court and retroactively interfered with their rights. 53.     Finally, the applicants also complain that the police interfered with their liberty as they were stopped without a warning. B.     Application no.   55925/08 54.     The applicant invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. He complains that, since the enactment of the new Administrative Offences Act, the legal security ( pravna varnost ) in the proceedings concerning administrative offences has dramatically diminished and that the courts almost always adhere to the findings of the police. He also complains that in his case the court has reclassified the offence, thus denying him the right to pay only half of the fine. The court did not conduct proper proceedings in which evidence could be examined and the applicant did not have an opportunity to be heard by the judge. The applicant submits that the court did not establish the impact of his trucks on the traffic situation or who was hindered by their presence on the road. C.     Application no.   3127/09 55.     The applicant complains under Article 6 that there was a breach of his rights to equality of arms and to the presumption of innocence. The court's judgment was based solely on the police file. The applicant did not have an opportunity to defend himself in person or to adduce evidence in his favour. Neither the officers nor any witnesses were examined by the court. In addition, he complains that no appeal lies against the court's judgment. 56.     Referring to Lauko v. Slovakia (cited above), the applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 that the Constitutional Court declined to deal with his constitutional appeal and based its decision on section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act, which came into force after the event concerned in the constitutional appeal. He argues that this decision of the Constitutional Court denied him access to a court and retroactively interfered with his rights. D.     Application no.   10390/09 57.     The applicant complains under Article 6 that there was no public hearing in his case. He also alleges that there was a breach of his right to the presumption of innocence. He did not have an opportunity to defend himself in person or to adduce evidence in his favour. The court's judgment was based solely on the police file. In addition, no appeal lies against the court's judgment, in breach of Article 13 and Article   6 in the part that guarantees access to a court. 58.     Moreover, referring to Lauko v. Slovakia (cited above), the applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 that the Constitutional Court declined to deal with his constitutional appeal and based its decision on section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act, which came into force after the event concerned in the constitutional appeal. He argues that this decision by the Constitutional Court denied him access to court and retroactively interfered with his rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present cases?   2.     In respect of each applicant, did he have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did he have a real possibility of challenging a decision made against him by the police before a tribunal that offered the guarantees of Article   6, in particular the right to a public and oral hearing and to equality of arms, including the right to defend oneself in person and to examine or have examined witnesses (see, for example, Öztürk v.   Germany , 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73 judgment, Lauko v.   Slovakia , 2   September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VI, and Baischer v. Austria , no. 32381/96, § 23, 20 December 2001)?     3.     In application no. 55925/08, 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 view of the fact that following the successful request for judicial protection and reclassification of the offence he did not have the possibility of paying the reduced fine?   4.     In application no. 55925/08, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the constitutional appeal in cases such as his be considered an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   5.     Does the complaint of a lack of an oral hearing raised in the present cases concern a deficiency in national law underlying the violation of Article 6 alleged by the applicants ?   6. The Government are requested to provide information as to   the frequency of   imposition and enforcement of prison sentences for non-payment in cases concerning administrative offences.