CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2020

.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 } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2A2C2249 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 29 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 50614/18 and 59732/18 Ivan MATIĆ against Croatia and Vladimir ANIĆ against Croatia lodged on 23 October 2018 and 14 December 2018 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES Application no. 50614/18   The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of causing a fatal traffic accident. The first-instance court found him guilty as charged, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and imposed a security measure prohibiting him from driving motor vehicles for a period of four years. Both the applicant and the State Attorney appealed against the first-instance judgment. The applicant challenged the factual and legal grounds for his conviction and sentence, while the State Attorney sought that a more severe sentence be imposed. The appellate court held a session without informing the applicant of it, upheld the applicant’s conviction and increased his sentence (to four years’ imprisonment), as well as the duration of the security measure (to five years). The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that, inter alia, he had not been given an opportunity to be present at the session of the appeal panel. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as unfounded. Application no. 59732/18   The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of indecent behaviour. The first-instance court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. In an appeal the applicant challenged the factual and legal grounds for his conviction and sentence and requested that he and his lawyer be present at the session of the appeal panel. The appellate court held a session without informing the applicant of it and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that, inter alia , he had not been given an opportunity to be present at the session of the appeal panel. The Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible finding that it did not raise a constitutional issue.   The applicants complain, relying on Article 6 § 1 (application no. 50614/18) and 6 §§1 and 3 (c) (application no. 59732/18) of the Convention, that in the criminal proceedings against them they were not allowed to be present at the session of the appeal panel. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicants’ absence from the session of the appeal panel in the criminal proceedings against them in compliance with the requirements of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Zahirović v. Croatia , no.   58590/11, §§   58-64, 25 April 2013; Arps v. Croatia , no. 23444/12, §§   24-29, 25 October 2016; and Bosak v. Croatia , no. 40429/14, §§   105 ‑ 112, 6   June 2019)?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 50614/18 Matić v. Croatia 23/10/2018 Ivan MATIĆ Croatian Sandra MANDIĆ JURIĆ 2 59732/18 Anić v. Croatia 14/12/2018 Vladimir ANIĆ Croatian Goran MARJANOVIĆ