CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDDB1B737 { width:116.14%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCCA4659C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s374003A0 { width:33.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2C492FAE { width:18.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6C72ECEF { width:15.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s47B0A97F { width:25.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s14AC249C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40138558 { width:33.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2DB0717C { width:18.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s32CC572B { width:15.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB2BDF54F { width:25.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 2 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40238/16 Erika DIMOVIĆ and Others against Serbia lodged on 21 June 2016 communicated on 7 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 18 January 2012 the first-instance court in Subotica found the applicants guilty of attempted aggravated theft. Both the applicants and the public prosecutor filed appeals against the first-instance judgment and replied to each other’s appeals. The Court of Appeal in Novi Sad failed to transmit to the applicants the public prosecutor’s reply to their appeal. On 26 November 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ conviction but reduced their sentences, giving them, respectively, eight months’, four months’ and three months’ imprisonment. The applicants learnt about the content of the public prosecutor’s reply to their appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. In a decision of 26 November 2015 (served on the applicants on 26 January 2016), the Constitutional Court found the applicants’ ensuing complaint in that respect manifestly ill-founded, noting that the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code did not require second-instance courts to transmit the public prosecutor’s reply to the accused’s appeal to the accused in this type of proceedings. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were unfair and that their right to adversarial proceedings was breached. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing before the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of the principles of equality of arms and/or of adversarial proceedings considering the fact that the prosecutor’s reply to defence statements of appeal had not been forwarded to the defence (see Zahirović v.   Croatia , no. 58590/11, § 42, 25 April 2013; Maravić Markeš v.   Croatia , no. 70923/11, § 46 9 January 2014; and Hrdalo v. Croatia , no.   23272/07, §§   34-40, 27 September 2011)? APPENDIX List of applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Erika DIMOVIĆ 1975 Serbian Čantavir 2. Roža DIMOVIĆ 1971 Serbian Čantavir 3. Magdalena KOLOMPAR 1987 Serbian Čantavir 4. Đenđi KOVAČ 1983 Serbian Čantavir