CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 2022

.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 } Published on 17 October 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39158/21 Dino ALIĆ against Croatia lodged on 29 July 2021 communicated on 30 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of fraud. The first-instance court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, suspended for four years. In an appeal the applicant challenged the factual and legal grounds for his conviction and sentence and asked to be invited to the session of the appeal panel. The appellate court held a session without informing the applicant of it and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court, inter alia, that he had not been given an opportunity to be present at the session of the appeal panel. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as unfounded. Two Constitutional Court judges, L.K. and G.S., gave a dissenting opinion on that decision, deeming it contrary to the well-established case-law of the Court. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that in the criminal proceedings against him he was not allowed to be present at the session of the appeal panel. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s absence from the session of the appeal panel in the criminal proceedings against him 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; Lonić v. Croatia , no. 8067/12, §§   94-102, 4 December 2014; Arps v. Croatia , no. 23444/12, §§ 24-29, 25   October 2016; Bosak and Others v. Croatia , nos. 40429/14 and 3   others, §§ 105-109, 6 June 2019, and Romić and Others v. Croatia , nos.   22238/13 and 6 others, §§ 99-103, 14 May 2020)?