CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 40292/23 Zvonimir MEDVEDOVIĆ and Branka MEDVEDOVIC against Croatia lodged on 6 November 2023 communicated on 11 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicants in which they were found guilty of abuse of trust in business operations and aiding and abetting therein, respectively. The proceeds of the crime, in the total amount of 20,388,500 Croatian kunas (roughly 2,706,000 euros), were confiscated from them. The conviction was based, in a decisive part, on an expert report which had been obtained in the investigation stage at the prosecution’s request. The applicants’ proposals, submitted at the trial stage, that a fresh expert report be commissioned or that the initial one be supplemented based on the documentation which had not been available to the expert witness at the investigation stage, were rejected as being irrelevant and intended to prolong the proceedings. The trial court also refused to admit into evidence an expert report which the applicants had obtained on their own motion, the findings of which allegedly contradicted those of the report obtained in the investigation stage. The applicants raised these issues in their appeals against the first-instance judgment and, subsequently, in their constitutional complaint, but to no avail. The applicants complain, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, about their inability to effectively challenge the expert report used to ground their conviction. Moreover, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they complain that the proceeds of crime were confiscated from them in criminal proceedings in which they were not afforded an opportunity to effectively defend themselves. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did they have an opportunity to effectively challenge the findings of the expert report used to convict them, in keeping with their right to an adversarial hearing and the principle of equality of arms (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   17995/02, §§ 38 and 41-42, 5 April 2007; Matytsina v.   Russia , no.   58428/10, § 194, 27   March 2014; and Kartoyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   9418/13 and   2   others, §§ 74 and 79-80, 19 October 2021)?   2.     Was the confiscation order adopted in breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, were the applicants afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos.   1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018 ; Shorazova v. Malta , no.   51853/19, §   105, 3 March 2022; and Rummi v. Estonia , no. 63362/09, §   104, 15   January 2015)?