CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 October 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 43604/19 Slađan MILANOV against Serbia lodged on 2 August 2019 communicated on 3 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s right to participate effectively in minor offence proceedings against him. In December 2015 the applicant was convicted for driving in a state of complete intoxication, and a fine of approximately 850 euros, 14 penalty points on his driving license and 8 months’ disqualification from driving were imposed. Following a remittal, on 18 April 2017 the first-instance court confirmed its judgment, which was then upheld by the Minor Court of Appeal on 1 June 2017 and by the Constitutional Court on 22 January 2019 (the decision was served on the applicant on 26 February 2019). In the proceedings the court heard the applicant, the police officer who stopped him and the police officer who conducted the alcohol test. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were invited to the hearing at which the witnesses (the two police officers) were examined by the court. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the summary minor-offence proceedings against him had not been fair. In   particular, he complains that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the two police officers who stopped him and conducted the alcohol test. He considers that his conviction was based on their statements. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Igor Pascari v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 25555/10, § 20-23, 30 August 2016)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the right to cross-examine witnesses, guaranteed by Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, secured in the summary minor-offences proceedings against him (see Mesesnel v.   Slovenia , no. 22163/08, §§   34-40, 28 February 2013)?