CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   Published on 6 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10397/20 Jure LETONJE against Slovenia lodged on 10 February 2020 communicated on 15 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the proceedings against the applicant who was accused of committing a regulatory offence of indecent conduct against police officers ( nedostojno vedenje ) under the Protection of Public Order Act. The police imposed a fine of 417.29 euros (EUR) on the applicant. The applicant lodged a request for judicial review of the payment order, disputing the statements of the police concerning his conduct. The Celje Local Court upheld the payment order on the basis of the file forwarded by the police, which contained the payment order, the statement of facts and the applicant’s request for judicial review. No hearing was held. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaint, finding that it did not fall within the exceptions provided in the Constitutional Court Act (such as the exception concerning an important constitutional question).   The applicant complains under 6 §   1 of the Convention that the domestic court did not hold a public hearing at which he and the witnesses could have been questioned.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him (see Flisar v. Slovenia , no. 3127/09, § 26, 29 September 2011), in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did he have an effective possibility of challenging the payment order before a tribunal that offered the guarantees of Article   6, including the right to a public hearing (ibid, §§ 36- 39, and Milenović v. Slovenia , no. 11411/11, §§   31-41, 28 February 2013)?