CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s66CE15DD { font-family:Arial; color:#242424 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10414/25 Dejan STOJILJKOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 20 March 2025 communicated on 9 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s right to participate effectively in minor offence proceedings which had been brought against him. On 28 January 2021 the applicant was convicted of violating the Public Peace and Order Act and was fined accordingly. The final decision in the case was rendered by the Constitutional Court on 23   October 2024 and was then served on the applicant on 20 November 2024. Relying on Article   6 §§ 1 and 3   (d) of the Convention the applicant complains that the summary minor offence proceedings in question had not been fair, in particular, that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the relevant witnesses and the co-defendant in a public hearing. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, given that he did not raise, in his appeal lodged with the Appeals Court, the issue of his absence from the cross examination of the relevant witnesses and the co-defendant (see Article   277 of the Minor Offences Act)?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, were the guarantees of the right to a public hearing and the equality of arms, as well as the right to defend oneself and to cross-examine witnesses, as provided by the above provisions of the Convention, afforded to the applicant in the disputed proceedings (see, for example, Mesesnel v. Slovenia , no. 22163/08, §§ 34-35, 28 February 2013 , with further references)?