CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16437/25 Ljubinko KOČINAC against Serbia lodged on 21 May 2025 communicated on 16 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a traffic accident and the fairness of the ensuing criminal proceedings, in which the applicant received a suspended prison sentence and was banned from driving for six months. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court also ruled against the applicant. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the fairness of the criminal proceedings relating to the traffic offence. In particular, he submits that the domestic courts relied on an expert report which he claims was factually erroneous, while disregarding a written opinion from another traffic expert which contradicted it. The domestic courts also refused to order an on-site reconstruction of the incident. Furthermore, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the judgments which resulted in his conviction did not adequately state the reasons on which they were based. 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 and 3 of the Convention?   In particular, having regard to the reasons given by the Kruševac Basic Court and the Kruševac Court of Appeals in their judgments of 1 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 respectively, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected (see Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017)? In view of the fact that the domestic courts refused to order an on-site reconstruction of the incident was the principle of equality of arms respected in the applicant’s criminal proceedings, as required by Article   6 §§ 1 and 3   (d) of the Convention?