ANICIC v. Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is12. on May 2026, and on June 9 of the same year, announced the verdict in the caseAnicic against Serbia, number 36639/22.

It's a verdictbroughtseven-member Council.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

On February 23, 2018, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia - Valjevo Police Department submitted a request for the initiation of misdemeanor proceedings against the applicant due to a violation from Article 35 of the Law on Road Traffic Safety. According to the request, on January 16, 2018, in Valjevo, the applicant caused a traffic accident by not moving properly on the right side of the road, but by crossing to the left side, as a result of which he came into contact with a vehicle owned by "Vodovod-Valjevo" and driven by M.N. in a state of severe intoxication. 

By the verdict of the Misdemeanor Court in Valjevo Pr. 3782/18 of June 10, 2019, the responsibility of both participants in the described traffic accident was determined and a fine was imposed on them. The applicant was also given a protective measure of banning the driving of a "C" category motor vehicle for a period of 5 months.

In the appeal against the aforementioned verdict, the applicant pointed out that the Misdemeanor Court in Valjevo violated his right to defense because he did not accept as evidence the report of a traffic expert proposed by his lawyer and because he did not inform the applicant's defense about the hearing of another participant in the traffic accident as a witness.

By decision of the Misdemeanor Court of Appeal Prž. no. 14168/19 of July 4, 2019, the applicant's appeal was accepted and the case files were returned to the first-instance court for retrial and decision. The trial court was ordered to rehear the witness M.N. in connection with all the circumstances of the traffic accident, about which he will inform the applicant and his defense counsel and allow them to ask questions, then hear the applicant again in the capacity of the defendant and after that decide on the proposal of the applicant's defense to carry out a traffic expert opinion.

According to the applicant's claims, the Misdemeanor Court in Valjevo did not act according to the instructions of the Misdemeanor Appellate Court and did not correct the irregularities pointed out by the aforementioned decision. Namely, the Misdemeanor Court in Valjevo did not hear the applicant again, even though the aforementioned decision indicated the circumstances under which the applicant needs to give a statement, but the report on the investigation of the traffic accident was read, in which the statement of the accused applicant was attached. The misdemeanor court in Valjevo did not consider the findings and opinion of the traffic expert hired by the applicant himself, nor did the judgment of Pr. 3782/18 of October 28, 2019, explained why he did not do so. According to the applicant, the verdict of the Misdemeanor Court in Valjevo dated October 28, 2019 was based on the testimony of a witness-participant in the traffic accident who had 1.96 per thousand of alcohol in his blood at the time of the accident.

The misdemeanor appellate court ruled Prž. 24314/19 of December 10, 2019 confirmed the judgment of the Misdemeanor Court in Valjevo Pr. 3850/19 of October 28, 2019.

Speaking about the initiative of the applicant's attorney, the Republic (now Supreme) Public Prosecutor's Office informed his attorney with letter PTZ no. 26/20 of January 31, 2020, that it did not submit a request for the protection of legality against the aforementioned judgments made in the repeated procedure.

The Constitutional Court, by decision Už-1971/20 of March 15, 2022, rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal, stating that it is not competent to, as an instance court, once again examine the legality of contested acts and actions, as well as that, in the practice of both the Constitutional Court and the European Court, the right to a fair trial from Article 32 of the Constitution and the right to defense from Article 33, paragraph 5 of the Constitution do not mean a guarantee that during the proceedings all evidentiary proposals of the defendant be accepted.

COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted a petition to the Court1July 3, 2022.

In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6 of the Convention.

THE DECISION THE COURT

The court accepted the applicant's complaint thatthe first-instance court did not rule on his proposal for the presentation of evidence by a traffic expert unanimously rejected as untimely, because he did not point it out within four months from the date of receipt of the decision of the Constitutional Court, but only on May 26, 2026, in his observations addressed to the Court, andin accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 1 and 4 of the Convention.  

The Court, by a majority vote, found the applicant's other allegations unfounded. Namely, the Court, first of all, reminded that its role is not to deal with all the factual and legal errors made by the domestic courts, nor to review the judgments of the domestic courts in the capacity of a "fourth instance" court, unless their findings can be considered arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that domestic courts are not obliged to accept every piece of evidence proposed by a party to the proceedings. They can refuse to present additional evidence if they think they already have enough material to make a decision.

In the specific case, the Court noted that the domestic courts relied on the police report, the sketch of the accident, photographs from the scene and statements of witnesses, considering that these evidences are sufficient to establish the facts and that it is not necessary to present as evidence the findings of the expert obtained by the applicant.

The court, based on the review of the explanation of the judgment of the first-instance court, did not come to the conclusion that the refusal to present as evidence the report of the expert obtained by the applicant can be considered arbitrary or obviously unreasonable.

In the opinion of the Court, the applicant could have presented in the form of a written statement all the information stated in the expert's report he obtained, which he did not do. The nature of the applicant's complaints is reduced to disagreement with the decisions of the domestic courts, and not to an actual violation of the right to a fair trial.

Following the above, the Court isfound that there was no violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6 of the Convention.

SEPARATE OPINION JUDGEROOSMA, PAVLI INÍ RAIFEARTAIGH

JudgesRoosma, PavliandNí Raifeartaigh(hereinafter: the judges) expressed their disagreement with the opinion of the majority that the applicant's right to a fair trial from Article 6 of the Convention was not violated.

In the first place, the judges pointed out that the offense for which the applicant was found responsible was punishable by imprisonment, as well as that the applicant was a truck driver for whom a conviction and sanction would have significant consequences, which was the case according to the judges.

Then the judges noted that the applicant had privately obtained an expert's report and did not ask for a postponement of the proceedings, but only for that report to be accepted as evidence and considered, bearing in mind that the first-instance court itself did not order traffic technical expertise, as well as that the verdict of the first-instance court was already returned once, among other things, due to the inadequately explained non-acceptance of the evidence of the said expert's report as before.

Then the judges reminded that the first-instance court relied on two pieces of evidence, namely the statements of the police officer who made a sketch of the scene and the other driver who was in a state of severe intoxication at the time of the accident. Regardless of the expertise of the police officer  who drew up the sketch, the judges considered that the participation of an expert was necessary to clarify the circumstances that led to the accident, and they did not understand the position of the first-instance court that the evidence presented was sufficient to clarify the matter.

The judges considered that the key issue that needed to be resolved was whether the applicant caused the traffic accident. According to their opinion, the report of the expert that the applicant privately obtained was not obviously irrelevant or unsuitable to clarify the disputed issue, nor can the applicant's request to consider that report be considered aimed at delaying the proceedings. The first-instance court could, after considering the findings, reject them, but the rejection of that finding without considering it for the reason that the evidence presented until then is sufficient to clarify the case, can be considered arbitrary, and put the applicant in an unequal position in relation to the prosecuting authority.

For the above reasons, JudgesRoosma, PavliandNí Raifeartaigh believe that the applicant's right to a fair trial from Article 6 of the Convention was violated.