CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 26 March 2020 Published on 25 May 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16779/19 Sibila JAGAR MARČIK against Croatia lodged on 18 March 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of breach of trust. The first-instance court found her guilty as charged and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. Both the applicant and the State Attorney appealed against the first-instance judgment. The applicant challenged the factual and legal grounds for her conviction and sentence and asked that her lawyer be invited to attend the session of the appeal panel. The State Attorney sought that a more severe sentence be imposed. The appellate court held a session without informing the applicant or her lawyer about it and upheld the first ‑ instance judgment. The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court, arguing, inter alia , that she had not been given an opportunity to be present at the session of the appeal panel. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 §§1 and 3 (c) the Convention, that in the criminal proceedings against her she was not allowed to be present at the session of the appeal panel.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s absence from the session of the appeal panel in the criminal proceedings against her in compliance with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Zahirović v. Croatia , no.   58590/11, §§ 58-64, 25 April 2013; Arps v. Croatia , no. 23444/12, §§   24 ‑ 29, 25 October 2016; and Bosak v. Croatia , no. 40429/14, §§   105 ‑ 112, 6 June 2019)?