CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 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 } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC1EED774 { width:53.25pt; display:inline-block } .s93981A44 { width:48.03pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6386/23 Ž.P. against Croatia lodged on 31 January 2023 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant in which he was found guilty of having committed lewd acts against a child and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction was based on, inter alia , the victim’s statement given before the investigating judge, the video of which was played at the trial hearing, and a combined psychiatric and psychological expert report concerning the state of the victim’s health and her ability to provide a credible testimony. The report was obtained at the investigative stage and prepared by an expert specialised in psychology and an expert specialised in psychiatry. Due to the former expert being ill at the time of the trial, only the latter expert was questioned at the hearing, at which occasion she stated that she was unable to respond to a question pertaining to the “psychological assessment” ( psihološka obrada ), posed by the defence. The applicant’s request that the victim be questioned at the trial was rejected in view of the opinion of the expert specialised in psychiatry that having to provide another testimony would cause her further traumatisation. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, that he did not have a fair trial in that he was not afforded an opportunity to question either the victim or the expert witness specialised in psychology.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his right to examine witnesses, including expert witnesses, secured in the criminal proceedings against him, as required by Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Paić v. Croatia , no.   47082/12, §§ 26-54, 29   March 2016; Rosin v. Estonia , no. 26540/08, §§ 50-63, 19   December 2013; Kartoyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 9418/13 and 2 others, §§ 74-78, 19 October 2021; Danilov v. Russia , no. 88/05, §§ 108-121, 1 December 2020; and Matytsina v. Russia , no. 58428/10, §§ 168-181, 27 March 2014)?