Lubarda and Milan v. Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 25. March 2025. brought, and 29. April announced the verdict in the case of the same yearLubarda and Milan v. Serbia, no. 6570/19 and 43604/19.
The verdict isdoneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the non-biting opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine witnesses in misdemeanor procedures that were conducted against them for traffic violations. The Court found that the possibility of prisoning in concrete misdemeanor procedures required the implementation of stronger trial guarantees, and that there were sufficient anti-tissile factors that would compensate for the formation of the applicants' rights in the proceedings. |
Circumstances Case
The first applicant is 2017. was convicted of passing on red light with a motor vehicle. A fine of 15,000 dinars was imposed (at the time around 120 euros),Protective measure of a vehicle management for three months And his criminal points were sentenced.
The second applicant is 2015. convicted of vehicle management in a state of complete alcoholism. It was imposed on a fine of 100,000 dinars (at the time around 850 euros), a protective measure of a vehicle management for eight months and punitive points was imposed.
In the utterance, both judgments are stated that the applicants were sentenced, if not paid, replace imprisonment for 15 days in the case of the first, or 60 days in the event of another applicant.
For both misdemeanors, the Law on road safety was prescribed in addition to monetary and imprisonment.
The misdemeanor Court of Appeals confirmed both first instance verdicts.
The Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Complaints of the Applicants dismissed.
Both applicants signed the records of the police officers at the place of execution of misdemeanors, but later challenged the content of these minutes in court. The verdicts against them are based on these records and on the evidence given by the police, which were taken in court, but not during the main trial.
The applicants were explicitly requested to examine the witness - police officers, and in the case of the first applicant, and in the case of the court, the Court would not lead to other facts, because the testimony was in accordance with the report that the other applicant has signed.
Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures
The first applicant filed a representation of the court 22. January 2019, and the other applicant 2. August of the same year.
The applicants complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. St. 1. And 3 (g) Conventions for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the opportunity to cross examine witnesses under whose statements are made by the verdicts in misdemeanor procedures that were conducted against them due to traffic violations.
Decision Court
The Court pointed out that the case needs to be examined in terms of two sets of principles - those related to orally hearing, especially in the context of the right to examine and cross-examine the witness; And those related to accepting untreated incriminating evidence of witnesses in criminal proceedings.
In terms of the first set of principles, the Court accepted that exemptions from the principle of presenting all evidence against the accused in the public hearing in his presence, before the conviction, possible. However, he pointed out that the rights of the defense must not be violated on that occasion that the accused enable to challenge and cross-examine witnesses against himself, at a time when the witness provides a statement, either at a later phase of the proceedings. The Court especially pointed out that the threat to prison in concrete misdemeanor procedures demanded the application of firm guarantees otherwise applicable in criminal law.
In terms of the second set of principles, the Court stated that the domestic courts gave full confidence in witnesses as they were in the scope of the place, although the applicants had retired on those records later. Accordingly, the Court found that the convictions of the applicants were decisive for their convictions, and that the possibility of applicants had not been a sufficient antebellation factor that would compensate for the restriction of their right to defense.
The Court eventually pointed out that the demands of efficiency and economy in the procedure, in the circumstances, could not justify interference in the right of applicants to cross examine witnesses.
Consequently, the Court determined a violation of Article 6 st. 1. And 3 (g) of the Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 1,000.00 euros in the Dinaric equivalent, and that the amount of € 2,765.00 also pays the amount of 2,765.00 euros in Dinaric equivalent to the applicants.