CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2024

.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 12 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 1703/23 Štefan BOŽIČNIK against Slovenia lodged on 23 December 2022 communicated on 24 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is one of the applicants (Mr Božičnik) who lodged an application with the Court on 8 October 2012, alleging a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. In the domestic criminal proceedings, which underpinned the applicant’s initial application, he had been found guilty of theft and had been sentenced to seven months in prison, suspended for three years on condition that he did not reoffend. His domestic remedies had not been successful, and the conviction became final. On 7 March 2017 the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the reasons for the applicants’ conviction had been given by judges who had not reached the verdict and had not participated in the trial ( Cerovšek and Božičnik v.   Slovenia , nos. 68939/12 and 68949/12). Subsequently, using a specific remedy available in the domestic legal system for situations where the Court has found a violation of a defendant’s Convention right, the present applicant obtained a re ‑ examination of his case by a first-instance court. In this (repeated) set of proceedings two hearings were held and, on 27 March 2018, the applicant was found guilty of theft and sentenced to four months in prison, suspended for one year on the condition that he did not reoffend. He unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction, including before the Constitutional Court. The applicant complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that he had to suffer the consequences of his conviction twice. In particular, both his convictions for the same offence were recorded in criminal records; he was liable to consequences of his conviction (attached to his potential reoffending during the probation period) twice; and he had to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings concerning the same offence. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant’s conviction been entered (again) in the criminal records and the sentence imposed on him (again) following the re-examination of his case?   If so, has the applicant been punished twice for the same offence in breach of Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention?