CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Communicated on 7 September 2020 Published on 28 September 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58721/16 Marina LAZOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 27 September 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant primarily complains, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 7   of the Convention, about the customs-related misdemeanour proceedings ( prekršajni postupak ) in which she was found guilty and fined for the offence of driving a car, in Serbia, which was owned by her brother and registered in France. The applicant, ultimately, sought constitutional redress, but on 1 June 2016 the Constitutional Court also ruled against her. The applicant maintains, inter alia , that the relevant domestic legislation was unforeseeable and, furthermore, that the decisions of the national judicial authorities were not properly reasoned. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the reasons given by the Leskovac Misdemeanour Court ( Prekršajni sud u Leskovcu , Odeljenje u Medveđi ) and the Misdemeanour Appeals Court ( Prekršajni apelacioni sud , Odeljenje u Nišu ) for their decisions of 17   October 2013 and 14 January 2014 respectively, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017)? 2.     Did the act of which the applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when it was committed, as required by Article   7 of the Convention (see Žaja v. Croatia , no. 37462/09, §§ 90-92, 4   October 2016; see also, mutatis mutandis , §§ 93-106 of the same judgement)? In particular, was the relevant domestic law foreseeable so that permissible and prohibited behaviour could be distinguished by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Žaja , cited above, § 106)?