CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2017

.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 }   Communicated on 23 February 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44112/16 Ilija DOMAC against Croatia lodged on 25 July 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ilija Domac, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Privlaka. He is represented before the Court by Mr   J.   Barbarić, a lawyer practising in Vinkovci. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 5 February 2015 the Vukovar Police Department (Policijska uprava vukovarsko-srijemska) issued a penal order finding the applicant guilty of causing a road accident in which T.G. sustained a bodily injury. The penal order relied on the results of the on-site inspection and a medical report for T.G. suggesting that she had sustained a whiplash injury as a result of the accident. The applicant challenged the penal order in the Vinkovci Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Vukovaru, Stalna služba u Vinkovcima), arguing that he had not been responsible for the accident and that T.G. had not sustained any injuries. He asked to be summoned and questioned before the trial court and that an expert report be commissioned in order to determine the dynamics of the accident and the nature of the injuries which T.G. had allegedly sustained. At the hearing on 6 October 2015, the Vinkovci Minor Offences Court questioned the applicant, a police officer who had carried out the on-site inspection and T.G.’s husband, who had driven the other car involved in the accident. The trial court also examined the available medical report for T.G. and the police report on the on-site inspection. The applicant reiterated his request that other evidence be obtained and examined. The trial court concluded the hearing indicating that a decision in that respect would be delivered at a later stage. On the same day, the Vinkovci Minor Offences Court found the applicant guilty on charges of causing the road accident in which T.G. had been injured and fined him with 1000 Croatian kunas (HRK) and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 100 (in total approximately 150 euros). The Vinkovci Minor Offences Court found that the available evidence showed that the applicant was guilty of the minor offence in question. It did not provide any reasoning for dismissing the applicant’s request to examine evidence. On 5 November 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), arguing that the minor offences proceedings against him had not been fair and that the Vinkovci Minor Offences Court had failed to provide any reasoning for why it had dismissed his request to examine evidence. The applicant attached to his constitutional complaint an expert report of 22 October 2015 indicating that the available material did not show that T.G. had sustained any legally relevant injury. On 14 January 2016 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that no relevant constitutional issue arose in the case. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 27 January 2016. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a lack of fairness of the minor offences proceedings against him. He alleges, in particular, that the relevant domestic court failed to provide any reasoning with regard to its decision refusing his request to examine any of the evidence proposed by the defence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the guarantees of equality of arms secured in the minor offences proceedings with regard to the manner in which the evidence was examined during the proceedings?   The Government are requested to provide two copies of all relevant documents in the applicant’s case.