CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 avril 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 May 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 6570/19 Zoran LUBARDA against Serbia lodged on 22 January 2019 communicated on 29 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s rights to participate effectively in minor offence proceedings against him. On 13 January 2017 the applicant was convicted of failing to comply with a traffic light signal and a fine of approximately 120 euros, six penalty points on his driving licence and a three months’ disqualification from driving were imposed. The judgment was upheld by the Minor Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court on 9 February 2017 and 13 July 2018, respectively. In the proceedings the court heard the applicant, his cousin, who was in a different car, and two police officers. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were invited to a hearing at which the witnesses (the applicant’s cousin and the two police officers) were examined by the court. The applicant’s request for cross-examination of the witnesses was refused. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complains that the summary minor-offence proceedings against him had not been fair. In particular, he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the police officers, who stopped him right after he had allegedly committed the offence. He considers that his conviction was based on their statements. 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 Igor Pascari v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 25555/10, § 20-23, 30 August 2016)?   2.     If yes, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the guarantees of the right to a public hearing and to equality of arms, including the right to defend oneself in person and to cross-examine witnesses, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, secured in the summary minor-offences proceedings against him (see Mesesnel v.   Slovenia , no. 22163/08, §§ 34-40, 28 February 2013)?