CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33AB37E2 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-1pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 9 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6959/17 Aleksandar CETINJA against Croatia lodged on 17 January 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was convicted of a minor offence (breach of public peace and order) which had in the meantime become time-barred. In particular, the documents in the case-file show that in October 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first ‑ instance judgment of the Delnice Minor Offences Court finding him guilty of the offence in question, fining him and ordering him to pay the costs of the proceedings. This appeal was examined and dismissed by the High Minor Offences Court on 27 May 2015, namely some three years and seven months later. However, section 13 of the Minor Offences Act applicable at the relevant time ( Prekršajni zakon , Official Gazette no.107/2007; see also sections 13 and 14c of the 2013 Minor Offences Act, Official Gazette no. 39/2013) provided for the (relative) prescription period of two years from the moment of the commission of the offence, which could have been interrupted only by the taking of an action by the relevant authority in relation to the minor offence at issue. In case of such an interruption, the relative prescription period started to run anew. The applicant contends that the failure of the High Minor Offences Court to take any action within a period of some three years and seven months led to the minor offence against him becoming time-barred under the cited (relative) prescription rule. He thus considers that he could not have been convicted and fined for that offence in accordance with the law. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant, contrary to Article 6 § 1 and/or Article 7 of the Convention (see, for instance, Coëme and Others v. Belgium , nos. 32492/96 et al., §§ 145-146, ECHR, and Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos.   46632/13 and 28671/14, § 101, 23 February 2016), been found guilty of a minor offence which had in the meantime become time-barred due to the failure of the High Minor Offences Court to take a procedural action concerning his appeal against the Delince Minor Offences Court within the period of relative prescription as provided by the relevant Minor Offences Act ( Prekršajni zakon , Official Gazette no. 107/2007; see also sections 13 and 14c of the 2013 Minor Offences Act, Official Gazette no.   39/2013)?   2.     Have the fine and costs of proceedings that were imposed on the applicant complied with the principle of lawfulness and been justified as required under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for instance, Konstantin   Stefanov v. Bulgaria , no.   35399/05, §§   53-54, 27 October 2015)?