CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2023

.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 } Published on 2 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28776/22 Bara MARAVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 31 May 2022 communicated on 12 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns summary minor offences proceedings against the applicant in which she was found guilty of a road traffic offence and ordered to pay a monetary fine. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, about the inability to effectively challenge the expert report used to ground her conviction and about the domestic court’s refusal to hear the injured person, two eyewitnesses and two police officers who performed the onsite inspection, as proposed by her. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?   In particular, did she have an opportunity to effectively challenge the findings of the expert used to convict her (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 17995/02, §§ 38 and 41-42, 5 April 2007; Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 711-716, 25 July 2013, and Kartoyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   9418/13 and 2 others, §§ 74-78, 19 October 2021)?   Did the domestic court’s decision not to examine the persons proposed by the applicant undermine the overall fairness of the proceedings (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia ([GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139-168, 18 December 2018)?