CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 6 December 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55430/16 Ivan KOBAŠ against Croatia lodged on 15 September 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns summary minor-offence proceedings against the applicant on charges of failure to report his new residence address. On 31 January 2015 the police issued a penalty notice finding the applicant guilty of the minor offence of not reporting his new address of residence, fining him 500 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately EUR 70). The applicant challenged the penalty notice before the court. On 16 October 2015, the minor-offences court upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant had been summoned to three hearings, but none of the summonses have ever been served on him, allegedly because service had been attempted to his presumed address and not to his registered address where he actually resided. Ultimately, the summons was served on him by way of posting it at the court’s announcement board, the court having considered that he had been avoiding service. As there was no possibility for the applicant to appeal to a higher court in the minor-offence proceedings, he lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), complaining that the court had never heard him in person because of its failure to properly serve him the summons for the main hearing. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the unfairness of the summary minor-offence proceedings against him.   QUESTION 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 the right to a public hearing and to equality of arms, including the right to defend oneself in person, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, secured in the summary minor-offences proceedings against him?