CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 21 April 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48134/15 Ines BOJIĆ against Croatia lodged on 22 September 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Ines Bojić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 17 May 2014, while driving her car in Zagreb, the applicant was stopped by a police officer for alleged speeding. She was immediately issued with a penalty notice finding her guilty of the minor offence of speeding, fining her 1,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) and ordering her to pay costs and expenses of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 100 (in total approximately EUR 150). The applicant challenged the penalty notice before the Zagreb Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Zagrebu ), arguing that it was based exclusively on the incorrect observations of a police officer. At the time of the alleged offence there had been a number of other vehicles on the road and it had therefore been impossible to establish, on the basis of the device he had used, whether she or somebody else had been driving above the permitted speed limit. Moreover, she contended that the relevant traffic sign had not been visible. In support of her arguments the applicant provided a photograph taken at the scene of the alleged minor offence; she also asked to be heard in the proceedings. On 2 October 2014 the applicant was heard before a single judge of the Zagreb Minor Offences Court. She denied the charges against her and asked the judge to examine further evidence. In particular, she requested that an investigation be conducted at the scene in order to obtain information about other alleged speeding offences established by the police at the same place. The trial judge dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that obtaining such evidence would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. On an unspecified date the judge conducting the proceedings questioned the police officer and examined the evidence in the case file. The applicant was not informed about the hearing. On 17 December 2014 the Zagreb Minor Offences Court found the applicant guilty of speeding, fined her HRK 1,000 and ordered her to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 500 (in total approximately EUR 200). It held in particular that the police officer’s statement was convincing and that there was no reason not to accept his evidence as credible and reliable. As there was no possibility for the applicant to appeal to a higher court in minor offences proceedings, on 10 February 2015 she lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), complaining that she had not been given an opportunity to participate effectively in the minor offences proceedings against her. On 19 March 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 15 April 2015. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of a lack of fairness in the summary minor offences proceedings against her.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the guarantees of an adversarial trial and equality of arms secured in the summary minor offences proceedings against her?   The Government are requested to provide two copies of all relevant documents in the applicant’s case.