CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 avril 2025

.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 May 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30043/23 Emanuela BETLEHEM LONČARIĆ against Croatia lodged on 24 July 2023 communicated on 22 April 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty of unauthorised manufacture and sale of drugs and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, replaced by community work. In particular, it was established that she had been selling air-fresheners containing synthetic cannabinoids. The applicant’s conviction was based on, inter alia , an expert report on the forensic examination of the samples of air-fresheners confiscated from several witnesses. The report showed that the air-fresheners contained certain substances which, as structural analogues of another substance, had been included in the list of drugs ( Popis droga, psihotropnih tvari i biljaka iz kojih se može dobiti droga te tvari koje se mogu uporabiti za izradu droga ). The applicant challenged that report on the ground that the substances found in the air-fresheners were not included in the list of drugs as such. To that end, at the hearing before the trial court, she posed to the expert several questions concerning the nature of those substances. However, the trial court prohibited the expert from answering them. Moreover, her proposal that the air-fresheners’ samples be included in the case file so that the trial court and the defence could have access to them was dismissed. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention, that she did not have a fair trial in that she was denied access to the material evidence on which her conviction was based, and that she was not afforded an opportunity to question the expert witness. 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 of the Convention? In particular:   (a) Were the applicant’s right to an adversarial hearing and the principle of equality of arms respected with regard to the disclosure of the evidence to the defence, and was she afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare her defence in this respect, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-II; and Matanović v. Croatia , no. 2742/12, §§ 151-159, 4   April 2017)?   (b) Was the applicant’s right to examine witnesses, including expert witnesses, secured in the criminal proceedings against her, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see 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)?