CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 August 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 63093/16 Predrag PETROVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 22 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint of a lack of fairness of the summary minor offences proceedings against him on charges of disobedience of a police order. The proceedings at issue were conducted before the Rijeka Minor Offences Court, which requested judicial assistance from another minor offences court, asking it to question the police officer who had allegedly witnessed the commission of the offence. Although the applicant requested to be confronted with the witness in question he was never given that opportunity. His further constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.   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 given an opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings and to question the police officer who provided evidence against him, as required by Article   6 §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see   Marčan v.   Croatia , no.   40820/12, §§   37-42, 10   July 2014)?