CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 12 December 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38757/21 Anton MILAT against Croatia lodged on 26 July 2021 communicated on 22 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant, upon lodging an objection against the penalty notice finding him guilty of forging a document, received a sentence which was harsher than that which was originally imposed on him by the penalty notice. The domestic courts held that the prohibition of reformatio in peius , a principle established by Article 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to which the defendant, where he is the sole appellant, must not be put in a worse position than if there had been no appeal, did not apply in the applicant’s case. The applicant complains, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the domestic courts failed to apply the prohibition of reformatio in peius when deciding on his objection against the penalty notice to his detriment, which consequently hindered his right to lodge a legal remedy against his conviction.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the fair trial guarantees respected as regards the prohibition of reformatio in peius (see Chervonenko v. Russia , no.   54882/00, § 36 in fine , 29 January 2009; Alkes v. Turkey (no. 2) , no.   16047/04, § 21, 8 June 2010; and Kuokkanen and Johannesdahl v.   Finland (dec.), no. 38147/12, §§ 25-27, 2 June 2015)?   2.   Was the applicant hindered in his right to lodge a legal remedy against his conviction and, if so, could that hindrance be regarded as having infringed the very essence of his right embodied in Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (see, mutatis mutandis , Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine , no.   5425/11, § 82, ECHR   2015)?