Bosniak v. Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is9. April brought, a30. April 2024. year posted the verdict in the caseBOšnjčkiagainst Serbia, which determined a violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in a member6. paragraph 1. KOnvices for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (In the following text: Convention).
The verdict unanimously brought the board of three judges.
The case refers to the complainant's complaint that he had violated the right to access the Court in the context of misdemeanor in relation to the traffic violation. The applicant complained that the domestic courts rejected the request for the judicial review of his case, because he did not submit a misdemeanor order issued by the police. |
Circumstances Case
The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant), Mr. Aleksandra Bosniak, Police officers of the Ruma Police Administration, June 2018, handed over a misdemeanor order, which contained a fine of 5,000 dinars, due to improper parking of a motor vehicle.
On that occasion, the applicant did not sign a misdemeanor order in the space provided.
In June 2018, the Applicant filed a court decision-making request, which also signed an unsigned misdemeanor order.
The Misdemeanor court rejected such an applicant's request, given that in accordance with the provision of Article 174. The Misdemeanor Order was not signed, and the misdemeanor Court of Appeals.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of misdemeanor proceedings, the applicant submitted a constitutional court to be rejected in April 2019. years. The Constitutional Court assessed that the applicant had not suffered significant damage due to the amount of the sentence.
Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures
The applicant was complained under Article 6. Paragraph 1. the Convention was denied the right to access the Court, given that his request for the court decision-making was refused / rejected domestic courts based on not signing a misdemeanor order.
The application was submitted to the Court of June 25, 2019. Years.
The Court first examined the Government that in this particular case there was an abuse of the right to a single petition due to an incorrect presentation of the case law of misdemeanor court, which the applicant also submitted to the submission. The Court found that the said case occurred in the context of domestic proceedings, not within communication with the Court, and assessed that this did not constitute abuse.
The government also stated that the applicant had to declare the application in unacceptable for the same reason that, regardless of the financial impact of the government, cannot accept the government because the issue of access to the court is criminal Things, by its nature, of special importance in terms of proper functioning and fairness of the criminal system of the given state. Hence, there is a question of general interest that cannot be considered trivial, or, accordingly, something that does not deserve the conveyance.
The Court continued to examine in terms of merits and found that the acting of domestic courts was an excessive formalism in terms of limiting the applicant's rights.
The Court presented that by the simultaneous submission of two documents to the relevant national judicial authority, ie. An unsubstantiated court review of an unsuccessfully expressed its intention of an unsuccessful requested order and signed to challenge its review before the court, and that additional examination of a separate request from one site cannot be considered an unjustified domestic court.
Also, the Court especially noted that it wasThe Constitutional Court later changed its practice in similar cases, acknowledging that the practice so far was an excessive formalism in limiting access to the Court in terms of the right to a fair trial (see the decision in the object against Serbia, number).
Bearing in mind, the court found that the way in which the domestic courts in this case could not be considered as a proportionate to achieve, and found that there was a violation of Article 6. Paragraph 1 . Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court was awarded the amount of 2,000 euros in the name of intangible damage, 1,800 euros in the name of costs and expenses, while the request for compensation for material damage declined.