CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juin 2022

.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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 27 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32702/16 Bela JURIĆ against Serbia lodged on 3 June 2016 communicated on 9 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to cross-examine a co-accused whose statement, given before the police, was used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him. In 2008 the applicant and another person, F.B., were arrested on a suspicion of theft. They both confessed to committing the crime before the police and the applicant repeated his confession before the investigating judge. However, at the trial he changed his statement. As F.B.’s residence was unknown at the time of the trial (he apparently moved to a new address in the same town), he was tried in absentia . However, his confession given to the police was admitted as evidence against the applicant. In 2013 the Basic Court of Subotica found the applicant and F.B. guilty of theft and sentenced them to ten and six months’ imprisonment, respectively. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Novi Sad on 2 October 2013 and by the Constitutional Court on 9 February 2016, respectively. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he did not have the opportunity to examine F.B. at any stage of the criminal proceedings and that the trial court made no efforts to secure his presence 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 the co-accused, 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 co-accused (see, among other authorities, Seton , cited above, §§ 61-62, and Lučić v. Croatia , no. 5699/11, 27 February 2014, § 79)? In this connection, the Government are invited to submit a copy of the investigation file no. K2467/10, of the Basic Court in Subotica.