CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 mars 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 1 March 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 57699/13 Nenad AKSENTIJEVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 16 August 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case primarily concerns the applicant’s complaint under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention that he was sentenced to a longer prison term than the one which was applicable at the time of the commission of the property-related offences in question (see, for example and among other authorities, Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey , nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, ECHR 2001 ‑ II, and Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.   2312/08 and 34179/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). Specifically, based on the subsequently adopted criminal legislation the applicant was concurrently sentenced ( primenom odredaba o sticaju ) to 17 years and 9   months in prison which was in excess of the maximum prison sentence of 15 years provided for in the earlier Criminal Code. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was a heavier penalty imposed on the applicant than the one which was applicable at the time of the commission of the offences in the present case, as proscribed by Article   7 of the Convention (see, in particular, the judgments of the Court of First Instance, Prvi osnovni sud , and the Court of Appeal, Apelacioni sud , both based in Belgrade, K.br. 19618/10   – Kv.br.   810/12 and Kž.1. 2691/12 of 26 March 2012 and 5 September 2012, respectively? 2.     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?