CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 April 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 36639/22 Aleksandar ANIČIĆ against Serbia lodged on 13 July 2022 communicated on 17 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a traffic accident and the fairness of the ensuing misdemeanour proceedings in which the applicant was convicted and fined, and was also forbidden from using his truck for a period of five months. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court also ruled against the applicant. Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the overall fairness of the traffic-related misdemeanour proceedings, including the national courts’ initial “failure to obtain” a traffic expert’s written opinion and their subsequent “refusal to take into account” a traffic expert’s written opinion submitted by the applicant personally. Hence, according to the applicant and notwithstanding the factual complexities of the case, his conviction was essentially based on one witness statement of a particularly dubious character. The applicant furthermore complains, also under Article 6 of the Convention, about the reasons given in the misdemeanour judgements reslting in his conviction.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was, in the specific circumstances of the present case, the general principle of procedural fairness contained in this provision respected given that the national courts had, according to the applicant, first decided not to obtain themselves a traffic expert’s written opinion and had then also refused to take into account a traffic expert’s written opinion submitted by the applicant personally (see, for example, Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos.   26711/07 and 2 others, § 95, 12 May 2016, with further references; see also, mutatis mutandis , Shulepova v. Russia , no. 34449/03, § 62 in fine , 11   December 2008; Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   17995/02, §§   38-43, 5 April 2007; and Matytsina v. Russia , no. 58428/10, §   169, 27   March 2014)? 2.     Having regard to the reasons given by the Valjevo Misdemeanours Court and the Misdemeanours Court of Appeals in their judgments of 28   October 2019 and 10 December 2019 respectively, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83 and 84, 11 July 2017)?