Dimovic et al. against Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 22. October 2024. brought, and 19. November 2024. published a verdict in the caseDimovic and others against Serbia, number40238/ 16.
The verdict isunanimously broughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the non-biting opportunities to applicants to give their comments to the Appellate Public Prosecutor's Office submitted in response to the applicant's appeal before the Appellate Court. The Court assessed that the applicants are made to properly participate in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, thus violating the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: Convention). |
Circumstances Case
The applicants was sentenced to the prison for a serious stole in Subotica in Subotica. The Applicant and the Prosecutor's Office in Subotica also stated appeal. Complaints were forwarded to the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad to decision-making.
Before making a decision, the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad was, in accordance with the provision of Article 445. paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, submitted appeals to the applicant's appellate public prosecutor's office in Novi Sad, followed by a submission stating that their appeal should be refused, and to Appreciate the Complaints of the Basic Public Prosecutor's Office in Subotica, and that the applicants are exempted by the stricter imprisonment. This statement was not submitted by the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad applicants, but they learned only after their second instance verdict was presented.
The Court of Appeals in Novi Sad decreased by the prison sentence, and in the reasoning of the Appellate Public Prosecutor in Novi Sad, he did not start his decision at all in Novi Sad. The submission was only mentioned when quoting documents.
The applicants then stated the Constitutional Appeal to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court was dismissed as obviously unfounded, stating that the Criminal Procedure Code does not require the Appeals to the Accused to provide an instance of the view of the prosecutor in response to their appeal.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicants submitted to the Court 21. June 2016. years.
In the representations, they complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Of the Convention, as they did not have the opportunity to comment on the public prosecutor submitted in response to the appeals of the Defense in Procedure before the Appellate Court in Novi Sad.
Decision Court
The government has emphasized the objection of the application, claiming that applicants have not suffered significant damage. The Court assessed that the mentioned complaint may not be decided without entry in Meritum, as it is closely related to the complainant that the principle of contradictory violated in their case. After considering meritum, the Court took the position that this objection of the government was unfounded.
The Court emphasized that the right to a contradictory trial in criminal proceedings implies that the Prosecution and the Defense have the opportunity to get acquainted and answering the other parties.
Although the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad did not explicitly referred to the Court of Appeals on the Appeals to the applicants' appeal to the decision of the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad, because it was proposed to be refused as unfounded.
The Court found that the applicants had an interest in submitting a copy of the mentioned declaration, as well as to provide them with the opportunity to answer the same answers if they want.
With reference to its earlier practice, the Court emphasized that the fact that there was inequality of the parties in the procedure at the procedural level, emphasizing that it is on defense to decide whether to comment or not.
Finally, the Court pointed out that the lack of legal provisions, which prescribes the complainant in the second instance criminal proceedings in Novi Sad in the situation in question to provide a written declaration of the Appellate Public Prosecutor before adopting a second instance judgment.
Consequently, the Court determined a violation of Article 6. Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 900.00 euros in the name of the compensation of intangible damage, while the remaining part of their request for fair satisfaction rejected.