CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 11 October 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46663/15 Denis PULJIĆ against Croatia lodged on 18 September 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Denis Puljić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms   V.   Drenški Lasan, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2012 the applicant was indicted before the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court on charges of preventing the implementation of measures for the protection of a child. Witness H.M. gave his statement before the prosecuting authorities, without the presence of the defence. At a hearing held on 3 March 2014 before the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court the applicant asked that witness H.M. be heard. This request was denied. On the same day the applicant was found guilty as charged and a suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment was applied with the probation period of three years. This judgment was upheld on appeal and by the Constitutional Court. The final decision was adopted on13 May 2015. 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?