Bosniaks against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is9. April brought, aApril 30, 2024. announced the verdict in the caseBOšnjačkiagainst Serbia, by which he established a violation of the right to a fair trial from Article6. paragraph 1. KConventions for the protection of human beings rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter: Convention).
The verdict was handed down unanimously by the Board of three judges.
The case refers to the applicant's complaint that his right to access the court was violated in the context of misdemeanor proceedings related to a traffic violation. The applicant complained that the domestic courts rejected the request for a judicial review of his case, because he did not submit a signed misdemeanor warrant issued by the police. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
To the applicant (hereinafter: the applicant), Mr. Aleksandar Boškoćević, In June 2018, the police officers of the Rum Police Administration handed over a misdemeanor order containing a fine of 5,000 dinars, due to illegal parking of a motor vehicle.
On that occasion, the applicant did not sign the misdemeanor order in the space provided for it.
In June 2018, the applicant submitted a request for a court decision, which he signed and also attached an unsigned misdemeanor order.
The Misdemeanor Court in Ruma rejected this request of the applicant, bearing in mind that in accordance with the provision of Article 174 of the Law on Misdemeanors, the misdemeanor order was not signed, which was also confirmed by the Misdemeanor Appellate Court upon the applicant's appeal.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the misdemeanor proceedings, the applicant submitted a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court, which was rejected in April 2019. The Constitutional Court assessed that the applicant did not suffer significant damage due to the amount of the imposed sentence.
COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant complained on the basis of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention that he was denied the right to access the court, considering that his request for a judicial decision on his case was rejected/rejected by the domestic courts only on the basis that he did not sign the misdemeanor order.
The petition was submitted to the Court on June 25, 2019.
In the first place, the court examined the Government's objections that in this particular case there was an abuse of the right to an individual petition due to an incorrect presentation of the case law of the Misdemeanor Appellate Court, which the applicant attached to the submitted petition. The Court determined that the mentioned case occurred in the context of domestic proceedings, and not within the framework of communication with the Court, and assessed that this did not constitute abuse.
The Government also stated that the applicant did not suffer significant damage and that for the same reason the application should be declared inadmissible, but the Court assessed that, regardless of the financial impact of the fine imposed on the applicant, the Government's objection cannot be accepted because the issue of access to the court in criminal cases things, by their nature, of particular importance in terms of the proper functioning and fairness of the criminal justice system of the given country. Hence, there is a question of general interest that cannot be considered trivial, or, accordingly, something that does not merit an examination of the merits.
The court continued the examination regarding the merits and determined that the actions of the domestic courts represented excessive formalism in terms of limiting the applicant's right to access the court.
The court stated that by simultaneously submitting two documents to the relevant national judicial authority, i.e. of the unsigned misdemeanor order and the signed separate request for judicial review, the applicant unequivocally expressed his intention to challenge the sentence imposed by the police and requested its review before the court, and that the additional review of the separate one-page request cannot be considered an unjustified burden for the domestic court.
Also, the Court specifically noted that iThe Constitutional Court subsequently changed its practice in similar cases, acknowledging that the previous practice represented excessive formalism in limiting access to the court in terms of the right to a fair trial (see the decision in the case of Poštić v. Serbia, no.
Bearing in mind all of the above, the Court found that the manner in which the domestic courts applied the relevant procedural rules in this case cannot be considered proportionate to the goal that those rules sought to achieve, and determined that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 Conventions.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court awarded the applicant the amount of 2,000 euros in the name of non-material damage, 1,800 euros in the name of costs and expenses, while the request for compensation for material damage in the amount of 42 euros was rejected.