CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDF837F39 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF51428C6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt } .s2187542C { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBA6BCE26 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s35B5BFA7 { width:24.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s9BBD2B8 { width:155.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 49358/22, 49562/22 and 54489/22 Rene CHELLERI against Croatia, Robert RADOLOVIČ against Croatia and Jan VIRANT against Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16   April 2024 as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Saadet Yüksel , judges ,   Elizabeta Ivičević Karas , ad hoc judge , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 15 October and 16   November 2022, respectively, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having regard to the comments submitted by the Slovenian Government, who exercised their right to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (b) of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision of the President of the Chamber to appoint Ms Elizabeta Ivičević Karas to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of Court), as Mr Davor Derenčinović, the judge elected in respect of Croatia, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3), Having deliberated, decides as follows: INTRODUCTION 1.     The three applications concern minor-offence proceedings in which the applicants, Slovenian nationals, were found guilty by the Croatian courts of minor offences with respect to their activities in the maritime waters claimed both by Croatia and Slovenia. 2 .     These three applications, in which the applicants make a complaint under Article 7 of the Convention, form a part of a large group of cases (451), which fifteen Slovenian nationals and one company lodged against Croatia in respect of minor-offence proceedings conducted against them in that country on account of their activities in the waters in question. Concurrently, there are also over 800 applications on the Court’s docket lodged by Croatian nationals against Slovenia, raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention in respect of minor-offence proceedings conducted against them in Slovenia regarding their activities in the waters concerned. THE FACTS 3.     The applicants, Mr Rene Chelleri (“the first applicant”), Mr Robert Radolovič (“the second applicant”) and Mr Jan Virant (“the third applicant”), are all Slovenian nationals who were born in 1993, 1965 and 1998, respectively. They all live in Izola (Slovenia). The first and second applicants were initially represented by Mr I. Senjak, and then by Ms M. Menard. The third applicant was from the outset represented by Ms M. Menard. 4.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.    Background      Border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia 5.     On 25 June 1991, Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Since 1992, the two countries have tried to establish their common border through bilateral negotiations. 6 .     The negotiations remained unsuccessful in respect of certain segments of the border, including the Bay of Piran ( Piranski zaljev/Savudrijska vala in Croatian; Piranski zaliv in Slovenian) – a shallow bay located in the northernmost part of the Adriatic Sea where the two countries have adjacent coasts. Slovenia claimed sovereignty over the entirety of the Bay, its vital interest being to have access to the “high seas” of the Adriatic, whereas the position of Croatia was that the delimitation must be made along the equidistance line. 7 .     After Slovenia became a member of the European Union (“EU”), in December 2008 it raised reservations in respect of seven of the negotiation chapters at the Intergovernmental Accession Conference of the EU with Croatia. 8 .     On 4 November 2009 Croatia and Slovenia signed an arbitration agreement (hereinafter “the Arbitration Agreement”) pursuant to which an arbitral tribunal (“the Arbitral Tribunal”) was to determine the maritime and land borders between the two countries. Article 7 §§ 2 and 3 of the Arbitration Agreement stipulated that the arbitration award would be binding on the parties and would constitute a definitive settlement of the dispute; the parties being required to take all necessary steps to implement the award, including by revisiting national legislation, as necessary, within six months after the adoption of the award. The Arbitration Agreement entered into force on 29   November 2010. 9.     Following the Arbitration Agreement’s entry into force, Slovenia lifted its reservations to Croatia’s accession to the EU (see paragraph 7 above). Croatia became a member of the EU on 1 July 2013. 10 .     In 2014 the Croatian authorities started warning Slovenian fishermen that they were in the territorial waters of the Republic of Croatia and told them to leave. For instance, a note that the Croatian Interior Ministry’s Border Management Administration sent to the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs on 18 November 2014 reads as follows: “On 17 November 2014, when monitoring the technical systems for the surveillance of the maritime space of the Republic of Croatia, at 2 p.m. officers of the Istria Police Administration, in the area of the Bay of Piran, observed the entry of the fishing vessel “J.”, [which was] flying the flag of the Republic of Slovenia, into the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia ..., travelling at a speed of 1.8 knots, which indicated the possibility [that it was engaged in] commercial fishing at sea. The above-mentioned fishing vessel navigated the territorial sea as far as [a point that was] 1.51 nautical miles from the demarcation line, after which the police vessel established contact with the commander of the fishing vessel via radio link, and the vessel was warned by the police officer that they were in the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia and told to leave the same, after which the fishing vessel turned around and left the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia at 3:30 p.m. ... at a speed of 2.8 knots. In the light of the above, we are sending you this information for your possible further action.”      Arbitration proceedings 11 .     In the course of the arbitration proceedings, a procedural issue arose on account of unofficial communications between the arbitrator appointed by Slovenia and that State’s agent before the Arbitral Tribunal. According to the extracts from intercepted telephone conversations published in the media on 22 July 2015, the conversations concerned (i) the disclosure of information about the discussions and tentative conclusions of the Tribunal during its deliberations, (ii) possible opportunities to influence Tribunal members during deliberations and privately, and (iii) the provision of documents from the agent to the arbitrator which the arbitrator could present as his own during discussions with other members of the Tribunal. Following the publications of the communications in the press, the arbitrator and agent concerned resigned from their respective positions. 12.     By a letter of 24 July 2015 Croatia sent extracts from those communications to the Arbitral Tribunal and, in the light of the fundamental loss of trust that in its view had been caused by the communications, requested the Arbitral Tribunal to suspend the arbitration proceedings. 13 .     By a note verbale of 30 July 2015, Croatia informed Slovenia that it considered the latter responsible for one or more material breaches of the Arbitration Agreement, for the purposes of Article 60 §§ 1 and 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“the Vienna Convention”), and that it was consequently entitled to terminate the Arbitration Agreement. It stated that the note verbale constituted a notification, pursuant to Article   65   §   1 of the Vienna Convention, by which it proposed that the Arbitration Agreement be terminated. It explained that, in its view, as a result of the unofficial communications referred to in paragraph 11 above, the impartiality and integrity of the arbitration proceedings had been irrevocably damaged, giving rise to a manifest violation of its rights. On the same day, the member of the Arbitral Tribunal appointed by Croatia resigned. 14 .     By a letter of 31 July 2015, Croatia informed the Arbitral Tribunal that it had decided to terminate the Arbitration Agreement and stated the reasons for so doing. Thereafter it did not participate in the arbitration proceedings in any way. 15.     On 25 September 2015 the president of the Arbitral Tribunal appointed two new arbitrators to the two vacant posts. 16 .     On 30 June 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled on the procedural issue by means of a partial award. It held, in particular, that Slovenia, by engaging in unofficial contact with the arbitrator that it had originally appointed, had acted in breach of the Arbitration Agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal nevertheless took the view that, in the light of the remedial action subsequently taken, those breaches had not affected its ability, in its new composition, to make a final award independently and impartially on the dispute between the parties, in accordance with the applicable rules, so that the breaches had not defeated the object and purpose of the Arbitration Agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that Croatia was not entitled to terminate the Arbitration Agreement under Article 60 § 1 of the Vienna Convention and that it therefore remained in force. 17 .     On 29 June 2017 the Arbitral Tribunal made an award (hereinafter “the Arbitration Award”) by which it delimited the maritime and land borders between Croatia and Slovenia. In so far as relevant for the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal delimited the border in the Bay of Piran by allocating approximately three-quarters of the Bay to Slovenia, and one quarter to Croatia – the line in between constituting the boundary between the internal waters of the two countries. Outside the closing line of the Bay (which divided internal waters from the territorial sea), the tribunal established the course of the boundary between the respective territorial seas of the two countries. It also established a connection (junction) between the territorial sea of Slovenia and an area beyond the territorial seas of Croatia and Italy.      Reactions to the Arbitration Award 18.     On the day that the Arbitral Tribunal made the Arbitration Award (see paragraph 17 above), the Croatian Government published a statement asserting that the Award had no effect for Croatia. They reiterated that Croatia had terminated the Arbitration Agreement after the arbitration proceedings had been irrevocably compromised by Slovenia’s unlawful actions (see paragraphs 11 ‑ 14 above) and invited Slovenia to engage in dialogue with a view to resolving the border issue. 19 .     To date, Croatia has not incorporated in its domestic law the Arbitration Award. It continues to apply the Rules on borders in the fishing sea of the Republic of Croatia ( Pravilnik o granicama u ribolovnom moru Republike Hrvatske , see paragraph 63 below) which stipulate that, until the end of the delimitation process between the two countries, the maritime border extends along the equidistance line in the Bay of Piran. 20 .     Slovenia fully incorporated into its domestic law the border as established in the Arbitration Award. 21 .     On 27 January 2018 the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs sent a note to the Slovenian Embassy in Zagreb, the relevant parts of which read: “The Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Republic of Croatia ... with regard to Slovenia’s announcement that it shall start to issue penalty notices to Croatian fishermen, would like to express deep dissatisfaction and disagreement with the announced unilateral measures against Croatian fishermen regarding fishing in Croatian maritime areas. The Ministry is of the opinion that such a step would mean that the Slovenian side is continuing the practice of unilateral actions that run counter to the existing agreement on the avoidance of incidents and invites the Slovenian side to refrain from [taking] the announced measures. The Ministry would like to reiterate that the relevant Croatian authorities have all the information regarding the illegal fishing activities of Slovenian fishing vessels in Croatia’s territorial sea, and that the persistence of the Slovenian side [in this matter] will force the authorities to respond with equal measures. The Ministry would also like to point out that the announced unacceptable actions are not a solution to the outstanding border issue but will only further complicate its resolution. Slovenia’s announcement furthermore constitutes utterly non-European behaviour by which the Slovenian side seeks to involve the inhabitants and fishermen who live and work in the border area in the resolving of the border issue. The Ministry would like to recall that two EU and NATO members have the obligation and responsibility to resolve any outstanding issues in a peaceful manner, refraining from unilateral actions, and invites the Slovenian side to resume dialogue on the open border issue.”      Pre-litigation procedure before the European Commission 22.     By a letter of 29 December 2017, Slovenia drew the attention of the European Commission to Croatia’s rejection of the Arbitration Award and stated that its refusal to implement the Award rendered it impossible for Slovenia to exercise its sovereignty over sea and land areas which, in accordance with international law, formed part of its territory. Slovenia thus requested the European Commission to bring Croatia’s breach of the Arbitration Agreement and of the Arbitration Award to an end, as that breach had to be regarded as a failure by Croatia to comply with its obligations under the Treaties. 23.     Following a number of incidents in the waters allocated to Slovenia by the Arbitration Award, Slovenia, by a letter of 16 March 2018, initiated the procedure for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations against Croatia by bringing the matter before the European Commission, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“the TFEU”). 24.     The Commission did not deliver a reasoned opinion within the three ‑ month period laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 259 of the TFEU.      Proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union 25.     On 13 July 2018 Slovenia brought an action against Croatia in the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter “the CJEU”). 26.     The relevant part of the opinion delivered by the Advocate General P. Pikamäe on 11 December 2019 in that case reads: “146.     ... it should be noted that it is not unknown, in the history of international law and even today[,] for one of the parties to arbitration proceedings not to recognise the validity of an award made by an arbitral tribunal or to refuse to implement that award[.] Indeed, even though there is no binding mechanism for reviewing inter-State arbitration awards, a State that disputes such an award can bring a dispute concerning the validity of that award before the [International Court of Justice.] 147. In that context, it is hardly surprising that the Republic of Croatia, in order to explain its reasons for not recognising the arbitration award at issue, relies on a claim that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers merely by issuing that award[.] In practice, when a State disputes an inter-State arbitration award, that award represents in reality merely an attempt to resolve the dispute in question since, in public international law and given the fact that it can be regarded as inherently executory, there is no binding mechanism, independent of the sovereign will of the States, that ensures the implementation of inter-State arbitration awards[.]” 27 .     In its grand chamber judgment of 31 January 2020 in Slovenia v.   Croatia (C-457/18, EU:C:2020:65), the CJEU declared that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the action. The relevant part of the judgment reads: “101     It follows from the foregoing that the alleged infringements of primary EU law that are covered by the first and second complaints result, according to the Republic of Slovenia itself, from the alleged failure by the Republic of Croatia to comply with the obligations arising from the arbitration agreement and from the arbitration award made on the basis of that agreement, in particular the obligation to observe the border established in that award. Likewise, the alleged infringements of secondary EU law that are covered by the third to sixth complaints are founded on the premiss that the land and sea border between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia has been determined in accordance with international law, namely by the arbitration award. The Republic of Croatia’s refusal to give effect to the award is said consequently to prevent the Republic of Slovenia from implementing throughout its territory the provisions of secondary EU law at issue and from enjoying the rights which are conferred upon it by those provisions and to prevent, in the sea areas that the dispute concerns, application of the provisions of secondary EU law that make reference to the full implementation of the arbitration award resulting from the arbitration agreement. 102     In that regard, it must be stated that the arbitration award was made by an international tribunal established under a bilateral arbitration agreement governed by international law, the subject matter of which does not fall within the areas of EU competence referred to in Articles 3 to 6 TFEU and to which the European Union is not a party. It is true that the European Union offered its good offices to both parties to the border dispute with a view to its resolution and that the Presidency of the Council signed the arbitration agreement on behalf of the European Union, as a witness. Furthermore, there are links between, on the one hand, the conclusion of the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration proceedings conducted on the basis of that agreement, and on the other, the process of negotiation and accession by the Republic of Croatia to the European Union. Such circumstances are not, however, sufficient for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration award to be considered an integral part of EU law. 103     In particular, the fact that point 5 of Annex III to the Act of Accession added points 11 and 12 to Annex I to Regulation No 2371/2002 and that the footnotes to points 11 and 12 refer, in neutral terms, to the arbitration award made on the basis of the arbitration agreement, in order to determine the date on which the regime governing access to the coastal waters of Croatia and Slovenia under neighbourhood relations will be applicable, cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Act of Accession incorporated into EU law the international commitments entered into by the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia under the arbitration agreement, in particular the obligation to observe the border established in the arbitration award. 104     It follows that the infringements of EU law pleaded are ancillary to the alleged failure by the Republic of Croatia to comply with the obligations arising from a bilateral international agreement to which the European Union is not a party and whose subject matter falls outside the areas of EU competence. Since the subject matter of an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought under Article 259 TFEU can only be non ‑ compliance with obligations arising from EU law, the Court, in accordance with what has been stated in paragraphs 91 and 92 of the present judgment, lacks jurisdiction to rule in the present action on an alleged failure to comply with the obligations arising from the arbitration agreement and the arbitration award, which are the source of the Republic of Slovenia’s complaints regarding alleged infringements of EU law. 105     It should be added in this regard that, in the absence, in the Treaties, of a more precise definition of the territories falling within the sovereignty of the Member States, it is for each Member State to determine the extent and limits of its own territory, in accordance with the rules of public international law (see, to that effect, judgment of 29   March 2007, Aktiebolaget NN , C‑111/05, EU:C:2007:195, paragraph 54). Indeed, it is by reference to national territories that the territorial scope of the Treaties is established, for the purposes of Article 52 TEU and Article 355 TFEU. Moreover, Article 77(4) TFEU points out that the Member States have competence concerning the geographical demarcation of their borders, in accordance with international law. 106     In the case in point, Article 7(3) of the arbitration agreement provides that the parties are to take all necessary steps to implement the arbitration award, including by revising national legislation, as necessary, within six months after the adoption of that award. Furthermore, the footnotes relating to points 8 and 10 of Annex I to Regulation No 1380/2013 state that, as regards the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, the regime, laid down in that annex, governing access to the coastal waters of those Member States under neighbourhood relations ‘shall apply from the full implementation of the arbitration award’. It is not in dispute, as the Advocate General has also observed in essence in point 164 of his Opinion, that effect has not been given to the arbitration award. 107     In those circumstances, it is not for the Court — if it is not to step beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties and encroach upon the powers reserved for the Member States regarding geographical determination of their borders — to examine, in the present action brought under Article 259 TFEU, the question of the extent and limits of the respective territories of the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, by applying directly the border determined by the arbitration award in order to verify the existence of the infringements of EU law at issue.”      Other relevant information 28 .     On 1 January 2023 Croatia became a Schengen Member State. Thereafter the border between Croatia and Slovenia became an internal EU border (see paragraph 72 below).    Information regarding the present three applications      Application no. 49358/22 29 .     The application concerns minor-offence proceedings in which Mr   Rene Chelleri (the first applicant) was found guilty of fifteen minor offences under section 43(1)(5) of the Croatian State Border Surveillance Act ( Zakon o nadzoru državne granice , see paragraph 61 below) – namely, entering Croatian territorial sea without complying with border procedures (submitting to the border police the crew list and the passenger list, that is, providing for reference their travel documents), despite being warned by the police that his vessel was in the Croatian territorial sea. 30 .     The offences were found to have been committed in September and December 2019. The first applicant, the owner of the intercepted Slovenian-flagged vessel and the owner of a fishing trade, was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of 15,000 Croatian kunas (HRK), that is, 2,000 euros (EUR).      Application no. 49562/22 31 .     The application concerns minor-offence proceedings in which Mr   Robert Radolovič (the second applicant) was found guilty of ten minor offences under sections 77(1)(5) and (3) and 78(1)(3) and (3) of the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act in conjunction with Article 42 § 1 (a) and Article 3 § 1 (a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) no. 1005/2008 and Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) no. 1967/2006 (commercial fishing without a valid fishing privilege issued by Croatia and using trawl nets in a prohibited area – see paragraphs 62, 73 and 74 below). 32 .     The offences were found to have been committed in December 2018 and January 2019. The second applicant, a co-owner of the Slovenian-flagged vessel from which fishing had been undertaken and the owner of a fishing trade, was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of HRK 68,000, that is, EUR   9,066.      Application no. 54489/22 33 .     The application concerns minor-offence proceedings in which Mr Jan Virant (the third applicant) was found guilty of six minor offences under sections 77(1)(5) and (3) and 78(1)(3) and (3) of the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act in conjunction with the relevant EU provisions (see paragraph 31 above) – namely, commercial fishing without a valid fishing privilege issued by Croatia and using trawl nets in a prohibited area. 34 .     The offences were found to have been committed in May, June, and July 2019. The third applicant, at the time the owner of the Slovenian-flagged vessel by which fishing had been undertaken and the owner of a fishing trade, was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of HRK 36,000, that is, EUR   4,800.      Features of the three sets of minor-offence proceedings    Procedure followed by the Croatian police 35.     With respect to each of the minor offences in question, the procedure was generally as follows. The Croatian maritime police officers would note that a vessel was entering the waters claimed by Croatia as its territorial waters. They would take note of which vessel was involved, verify who its registered owner/user was, establish the vessel’s exact geographical position, and observe whether it was engaged in commercial fishing activities. They would issue oral warnings to those on board that they were in Croatian territorial sea and that they should cease their activities and leave. Sometimes they would record events with a video camera. Intercepted vessels would each time be accompanied by the Slovenian police, and on no occasion the Croatian police officers boarded the vessels. The Croatian police would prepare reports with respect to the events, and penalty notices would be issued against the applicants.    Proceedings before the minor-offences courts 36.     The applicants, represented by a lawyer practicing in Croatia, lodged objections against the penalty notices, and their cases were forwarded to the minor-offences department of the Pazin Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Pazinu, Stalna služba u Poreču-Parenzo, Prekršajni odjel ). 37.     In each set of proceedings, the Pazin Municipal Court held hearings which the applicants did not attend but at which they were represented by their lawyer. The Croatian police officers who had been present during the events in question were heard as witnesses. The applicants submitted their written defence statements, and their lawyer gave the closing arguments. 38.     By judgments issued on 7 January, 19 November and 7 December 2021 respectively, the Pazin Municipal Court found the applicants guilty of the above-mentioned minor offences under the Croatian State Border Surveillance Act and the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act (see paragraphs 29, 31 and 33 above). 39.     By judgments issued on 26 May and 27 December 2021 and 12   January 2022 respectively, the High Minor Offences Court ( Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicants’ subsequent appeals and upheld their convictions.    Minor offences courts’ reasoning       As regards the application of the relevant provisions 40.     With respect to the first applicant’s argument that the relevant provision of the Schengen Borders Code to which section 43(1)(5) of the Croatian State Border Surveillance Act referred (see paragraphs 61 and 72 below) could not be applied to fishing boats which did not transport passengers, and that in any event not complying with the relevant provision of the Schengen Borders Code did not constitute an offence – the courts held that section 43(1)(5) of the Croatian State Border Surveillance Act precisely defined the minor offence that the first applicant had committed. They further explained that the provision in question was not limited only to the international maritime transportation of passengers, but that it also imposed obligations on masters of fishing vessels. 41.     With respect to the second and third applicants’ argument that the Croatian authorities had failed to take into account the fact that the applicants held permission to fish issued by Slovenia as the “corresponding coastal state” referred to in section 77(1)(5) of the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act, the courts responded that: (a) foreign natural and legal persons could not obtain a privilege to fish in Croatian fishing seas without there being an international fisheries agreement regulating the principles and rules of conducting fishing activities in an area over which, under Article 7 of the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act, Croatia had jurisdiction, and that undoubtedly no such agreement had been concluded between Croatia and Slovenia and, (b) having regard to the fact that the regime under which Slovenia would have access to Croatian coastal waters under Annex I to the Regulation no. 1380/2013 did not yet apply since the Arbitration Award had not yet been implemented, Slovenia could not be considered to constitute a “corresponding coastal State” under section 77(1)(5) of the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act. 42.     As to the applicants’ specific argument that the events should have been considered to constitute border incidents and resolved in accordance with section 35 of the Croatian State Border Surveillance Act (see paragraph 61 below), the courts explained that the provisions on border incidents were inapplicable in respect of the cases at hand because such incidents could only be committed by public officials, and the applicants undisputedly did not hold that status.     As to the applicants’ individual liability for the offences 43.     With respect to the first applicant (who was found guilty of the offences under the Croatian State Border Surveillance Act – see paragraph 29 above) and his argument that the Croatian police had not established who had been present on board and who the vessel’s master was, the courts referred to Articles 5 § 6 and 146 of the Croatian Maritime Code ( Pomorski zakonik – see paragraph 59 below) and held that, in the event of a failure to appoint a master (the first applicant did not argue that he had appointed another person to act as vessel’s master), the owner of the vessel (the first applicant) was to be held liable as the master of the vessel for the offences perpetrated by that vessel, regardless of whether or not being present on the vessel. 44.     With respect to the similar arguments made by the second and third applicants, who were found guilty of the offences under the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act (see paragraphs 31 and 33 above), the courts held that the owners of the fishing trade (the second and third applicants) were responsible for ensuring the legality of commercial fishing undertaken within the scope of the trade activities performed by their vessels. In so concluding, the domestic courts relied on section 22(1) of the Croatian Minor Offences Act ( Prekršajni zakon – see paragraph 58 below), section 4 of the Croatian Trade Act ( Zakon o obrtu , see paragraph 60 below) and the fact that under the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act, the perpetrator of the offence can also be a trade owner (see paragraph 62 below).    As to the maritime border 45 .     The domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ arguments that the events in question had occurred in Slovenian, and not Croatian waters, that the applicants had acted in accordance with the Slovenian law which had implemented the border as established in the Arbitration Award, and that they could not have known that they would be held liable for minor offences in Croatia. 46.     The courts firstly held that it was a generally known fact that Croatia had terminated the Arbitration Agreement and did not recognise the Arbitration Award. 47.     They then referred to the Croatian Parliament’s Declaration on the state of inter-State relations between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia ( Deklaracija o stanju međudržavnih odnosa Republike Hrvatske i Republike Slovenije , see paragraph 66 below), explaining that it stipulated that until a border agreement was reached between the two countries, the maritime border in the Bay of Piran was to be at the equidistance line, which the applicants had undoubtedly crossed. 48.     In the second and third applicants’ case, the High Minor Offences Court further referred to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (see paragraph 79 below) – among the signatories to which numbered both Croatia and Slovenia. It referred in particular to Article 2 (which provides that the sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea, and that the sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to that Convention and to other rules of international law) and to Article 300 (which provides that States Parties should fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed under that Convention and should exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognised therein in a manner that would not constitute an abuse of right). 49.     The High Minor Offences Court further referred to the Rules on borders in the fishing sea of the Republic of Croatia (see paragraph 63 below) – issued on the basis of section 7 of the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act, which defined the maritime area over which the Republic of Croatia had sovereignty (see paragraph 62 below). It referred in particular to Article 5 of the Rules, stating that the latter precisely described the course of the maritime border with Slovenia. 50.     The High Minor Offences Court also held that – under the rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and having regard to the fact that thus far no agreement had been reached between Croatia and Slovenia regarding the maritime border – the border between the territorial seas of the two countries was at the equidistance line in the Bay of Piran. 51.     The courts lastly held that as persons who engaged in commercial fishing, the applicants had certainly been aware of the situation regarding the border. Further to this, they had been convicted of multiple offences perpetrated on multiple occasions. On each occasion they had been warned by the Croatian police that they were in Croatian waters. Moreover, on every occasion they had been accompanied by the Slovenian police, which would not have been the case had they been unaware of the situation regarding the border.    Decisions of the Constitutional Court 52.     The applicants lodged constitutional complaints with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) against the judgments delivered by the minor offences courts, alleging violations of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention in respect of the minor-offence proceedings conducted against them. 53.     By decisions rendered on 2 and 29 June 2022, respectively, the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaints as unfounded. It established that they were largely identical to the constitutional complaints submitted in two others sets of minor-offence proceedings conducted in respect of similar circumstances, regarding which on 29 March 2022 the Constitutional Court had adopted two leading decisions – namely, no. U-III-3917/2021 (relating to minor offences under the Croatian State Border Surveillance Act) and no. U-III-5534/2021 (relating to minor offences under the Croatian Marine Fisheries Act) (see paragraphs 67-68 below). The Constitutional Court therefore found it appropriate to refer to its findings in those leading decisions. 54.     In particular, the Constitutional Court held that the lower courts’ decisions had been in line with the relevant domestic law and practice and with international law, that they had been sufficiently reasoned in respect of all the complainants’ arguments, and that there had been no arbitrariness in the factual findings. It held that the minor offences for which the complainants had been convicted had been clearly defined in law and that it had been undoubtedly foreseeable for them that their actions would constitute the minor offences in question. 55.     The Constitutional Court’s decisions were served on the applicants’ representative on 15 June and 16 July 2022, respectively.    Other relevant information 56.     It appears that none of the fines imposed on the applicants has been paid so far, and that the Croatian authorities are not undertaking any steps to collect them. The statutory time-limit for those fines to become time-barred is three years from the judgment by which they were imposed becoming final (see paragraph 58 below). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE    Domestic law and practice 57 .     The relevant Articles of the Croatian Constitution ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 56/90, as amended) read as follows: Article 2 “... (2)     The sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia extends to its land territory, rivers, lakes, channels, internal maritime waters [and] territorial sea, and the airspace over those areas. (3)     The Republic of Croatia exercises, in accordance with international law, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the maritime areas and on the seabed of the Adriatic outside the State area up to the borders with its neighbours. ...” Article 8 “Borders of the Republic of Croatia may only be changed by a decision of the Croatian Parliament.” Article 115(3) “The courts rule on the basis of the Constitution, laws, international agreements and other valid sources of law.” Article 134 “International agreements which are concluded and confirmed in accordance with the Constitution and are published, and which are in force, form part of the internal legal order of the Republic of Croatia, and [take precedence], by virtue of their legal force, over the [domestic] laws. Their provisions can be amended or quashed only under the conditions and in the manner determined therein, or in accordance with the general rules of international law.” 58 .     The relevant provisions of the Croatian Minor Offences Act ( Prekršajni zakon , Official Gazette no. 107/07, as amended), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Section 12 “(1)     The minor-offence legislation of the Republic of Croatia applies to anyone who commits a minor offence on its territory. (2)     A special law may prescribe that the minor offences legislation of the Republic of Croatia be applied also in the sea area in respect of which the Republic of Croatia has certain sovereign rights and the right of jurisdiction. ...” Section 14(1) “A sanction imposed for a minor offence cannot be enforced after three years have passed since the decision by which it was imposed became final.” Section 17 “A minor offence is committed in the place where the perpetrator undertook an action or was obliged to undertake it, and in the place where the consequence of the offence arose in whole or in part ...” Section 22(1) “The perpetrator of a minor offence is a person who commits a minor offence by his or her own action or inaction or through the agency of another person.” Section 29 “(1)     A perpetrator is not guilty if, for justified reasons, he or she did not know and could not have known that the act was prohibited. (2)     If the mistake was rectifiable, the perpetrator may be punished more leniently for the offence committed. (3)     A mistake will be considered rectifiable if everyone, including the perpetrator, could have easily recognised the illegality of the act, or if the perpetrator is a person who, owing to his or her profession or service, was obliged to familiarise him/herself with the corresponding regulation.” Section 34 “(1)     If the fine, the costs of the minor offence proceedings and the forfeited property benefit are not paid in full or in part within the time limit specified in the decision on the minor offence, they shall be collected by means of enforcement, unless otherwise specified by this Act. ... (5)     When a defendant who does not have domicile [ prebivalište ] or permanent residence [ stalni boravak ] in the Republic of Croatia has not paid the fine within the period determined by the decision on the minor offence, the fine shall be immediately replaced by a prison sentence. ...” 59 .     The relevant provisions of the Croatian Maritime Code ( Pomorski zakonik , Official Gazette nos. 181/04, as amended), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 1 “(2)     If this Code does not provide otherwise, its provisions apply to vessels that are located or navigate in internal sea waters [and] the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia.” Article 5 “Unless otherwise specified by this Code, certain terms in the sense of this Code have the following meanings: ... 6.     a disponent owner [ brodar ] is a natural or legal person who, being in possession of the vessel, is the holder of the maritime venture, with the fact that it is assumed, until the contrary is proved, that the disponent owner is a person who is registered in the register of ships as the owner of the vessel ... 49.     a foreign fishing vessel is a vessel belonging to a foreign state, which is intended and equipped for catching fish or other living creatures in the sea or on the seabed ...” Article 6 “(1)     The sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia at sea extends to the internal sea waters and the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia, to the airspace above them and to the bottom and subsoil of those sea areas. ...” Article 18 “1)     The territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia is a strip of sea 12 nautical miles wide, calculated from the starting line in the direction of the economic zone. .. (3)     The starting lines are drawn in the ‘Adriatic Sea’ nautical chart, published by the Croatian Hydrographic Institute.” Article 19 “The outer limit of the territorial sea is a line, each point of which is 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the starting line.” Article 20 “All foreign vessels have the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia.” Article 23 “The passage of a foreign vessel through the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia is not considered innocent if that vessel performs any of the following activities: ... 9)     engages in fishing or catching other sea creatures, ...” Article 25 “(1)     During their passage through the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia, foreign fishing vessels are prohibited from catching fish or other sea creatures in the sea or on the seabed. (2)     A foreign fishing vessel is obliged to sail through the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia at a speed of not less than six knots, without stopping or anchoring, unless that is absolutely necessary owing to force majeure or suffering distress at sea, and to have fishing vessel markings prominently displayed. (3)     The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article do not apply to a foreign fishing vessel that has permission to fish in the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia while it is located in the area where fishing is authorised.” Article 146 “(1)     The master of the ship commands the crew and all other persons on board. (2)     The master of the ship is appointed and dismissed from his or her duties by the boatman or the company. ...” Article 147 “(1)     The master of the ship is responsible for the safety of the ship and order on board and, within the limits set by this Code and other regulations, has public authority on the ship and represents the company. ...” 60 .     The relevant provisions of the Cr