CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 12 July 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4283/16 Milan PEŠIĆ against Serbia lodged on 4 January 2016 communicated on 21 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a lawyer. He was convicted for giving a bribe to a judge and sentenced conditionally to six months’ imprisonment. During the pre-trial phase of the proceedings, the investigating judge heard a witness who has later left the country and, as a consequence, was not heard during the trial. Her statement was nonetheless admitted as evidence and appears to have been “decisive for the outcome of the case”. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he did not have the opportunity to examine the witness in question at the trial.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges in question and was he, in particular, able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Dimović and Others v. Serbia , no.   7203/12, 11 December 2019; Dimović v. Serbia , no. 24463/11, 28 June 2016; and Seton v. the United Kingdom , no.   55287/10, § 57 - 68, 31 March 2016)?   2.     Did the first instance court try to secure the attendance of the absent witness via the international legal assistance in criminal matters or by other means (see, among other authorities, Seton v. the United Kingdom , no. 55287/10, 31 March 2016, §§ 61-62; and Lučić v. Croatia , no. 5699/11, 27   February 2014, § 79)? In this connection, you are required to submit a copy of the criminal file no. K130/05, of the District Court in Subotica.