CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 9 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 47082/12 Zoran PAIĆ against Croatia lodged on 9 July 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Zoran Paić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Šibenik. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 9 November 2006 the applicant was indicted in the Šibenik Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Šibeniku ) on charges of theft of a mobile phone from E.R., who had come to Croatia as a tourist from the Czech Republic. Meanwhile, E.R. left Croatia and in 2009 she was questioned as a witness before a court in the Czech Republic based on a request for international legal assistance by the Croatian authorities. In her statement, she alleged having seen the applicant taking her mobile phone. During the proceedings before the Šibenik Municipal Court the applicant challenged the accusations contending that there had been a dispute between him and E.R. over the behaviour of her children but that he had not stolen her mobile phone. The applicant’s arguments were essentially confirmed by his former wife who was also questioned as a witness during the proceedings. On an unspecified date in 2010 the Šibenik Municipal Court decided to admit the record of E.R.’s questioning into evidence without her direct examination at the trial on the grounds that she had been questioned about the events of four years ago and that it could not be expected that she could now remember any new details of the case. The Šibenik Municipal Court also stressed that the proceedings could no longer be protracted as the prosecution would become time-barred in July 2011. On 28 October 2010 the Šibenik Municipal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment suspended for one year. It held that the evidence given by E.R. conclusively showed that the applicant had committed the offence at issue. The applicant appealed and on 3 March 2011 the Šibenik County Court ( Županijski sud u Šibeniku ) dismissed his appeal as ill-founded upholding the first-instance judgment. On 13 May 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) arguing that he had not had a fair trial as he had not been given an opportunity to question E.R. On 8 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Meanwhile, the applicant requested the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia ( Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske ) to institute the proceedings for the protection of legality and on 28 March 2012 his request was refused on the grounds that the competent courts had acted in accordance with the law. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, that he did not have a fair trial in that he had not been given the opportunity to question a witness against him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of all the relevant documents for the applicant’s case.