CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } Communicated on 8 October 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31163/13 Goran VLAHOV against Croatia lodged on 23 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Goran Vlahov, is a Croatian national who was born in   1959 and lives in Šibenik. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a representative of the Šibenik branch of the Croatian Customs Officers’ Trade Union ( Carinski sindikat Hrvatske, Podružnica Šibenik ; hereinafter “the CSK”). Between 3 January and 16 February 2007, acting in his capacity as a trade union representative, the applicant refused fifteen employees of the Šibenik Customs Office membership of the CSK. In so doing, he acted in accordance with a decision taken by other members of the trade union not to extend the membership of the CSK at the relevant time. The applicant had also wanted to prevent a manoeuvre by their employer to get a number of “its people” into the trade union, thereby changing the governing structures within the union. On 17 October 2008 the Šibenik Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku ) indicted the applicant in the Šibenik Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Šibeniku ) on charges of preventing citizens from joining trade unions. During the proceedings, the applicant asked the Šibenik Municipal Court to question a number of witnesses who could confirm his reasons for refusing to extend the membership of the CSK. On 23 September 2010 the Šibenik Municipal Court, dismissing the request to hear further evidence, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for a year.   The Šibenik Municipal Court found that it had been clearly established that, contrary to the Constitution and relevant domestic law, the applicant had prevented citizens from joining the trade union. The applicant challenged that judgment before the Šibenik County Court ( Županijski sud u Šibeniku ), which dismissed his appeal on 16 December 2010, upholding the first-instance judgment. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), which on 17   October 2012 dismissed his complaint as ill-founded, endorsing the reasons for the applicant’s conviction. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 30 October 2012. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article 11 of the Convention about his criminal conviction for refusing to admit several individuals to the trade union whilst acting in his capacity as a trade union representative. He also complains of the lack of fairness of the relevant criminal proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial with regard to his opportunity to obtain the questioning of relevant witnesses?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention?     The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant’s case.