CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 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 } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 20 September 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 74272/17 Marica MIĆIĆ against Croatia lodged on 12 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of fraud. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) that she had not had adequate time and facilities for preparation of her defence when questioned by a police officer and that she had been questioned without the presence of a lawyer. She also complains that her conviction was based on statements of two witnesses who had not been heard at the trial and that the national courts dismissed her request to hear the two witnesses at issue without giving sufficient and relevant reasons. Lastly, she complains about the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article   6 §§   1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was the length of the proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement? (b)     Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities for preparation of her defence when she was questioned by the police? (c)     Was the applicant afforded an opportunity to be represented by a lawyer of her own choosing when she was questioned by the police? (d)     Was the applicant able to question witnesses M.Z. and K.B.? (e)     Did the national courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for refusing to call to trial witnesses M.Z and K.B.?