CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 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 } .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 25 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 56988/21 Željko GAŠPAROVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 17 November 2021 communicated on 6 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the quashing of a final criminal court judgment issued against the applicant by means of the legality review procedure. In the criminal proceedings the applicant was found guilty of causing a road traffic accident in which one person had lost her life. Once the judgment became final and binding, he served his sentence. The General State Attorney then lodged a request for the protection of legality and asked the Supreme Court to quash the lower courts’ judgments on the ground that the change of law, which had occurred some 20 days before the municipal court had adopted the first-instance judgment, had rendered that court incompetent to conduct the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the request, quashed the lower courts’ judgments, and remitted the case to the county court as the competent court. The county court conducted the proceedings afresh and found the applicant guilty as charged. The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he was never served with the General State Attorney’s request for the protection of legality and was therefore unable to submit his views, and that the quashing of the final judgment against him violated the principles of equality of arms and legal certainty. He also complains, without relying on any Article of the Convention, that as a result of granting the request for the protection of legality he went through the ordeal of being tried and convicted twice for the same offence.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?   In particular, did the proceedings for examining the request for the protection of legality comply with the requirements of that Article (see Vanyan v. Russia , no. 53203/99, §§ 63-68, 15 December 2005)?   Did the Supreme Court’s decision granting the request for the protection of legality breach the principle of legal certainty (see Nikitin v. Russia , no.   50178/99, §§ 54-57, ECHR 2004-VIII; Radchikov v. Russia , no.   65582/01, §§ 44 and 50, 24 May 2007; Zvezdin v. Russia , no. 25448/06, § 30, 14 June 2007, and Xheraj v. Albania , no. 37959/02, §§ 53-54, 29 July 2008)?   2.     Was the reopening of the criminal proceedings against the applicant justified by the exceptions set out in Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 132-133, 8   July 2019)? If not, has there been a breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7?