Milan Pešić
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 21. January 2025. year brought, and 13. February of the same year announced the decision in the case Milan Pesic against Serbia, No. 4283/16.
The decision is doneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the decision of the domestic court to read the testimation of witnesses in the investigative proceedings, due to the inability to ensure his arrival at the trial. The applicant complained that his condemnation, in essence, is based on the testimony of witnesses only before the investigating judge, not at the main trial, or because the testimony of the witness from the investigation is only read on the main trial. The court rejected the application as clearly unfounded. |
Circumstances Case
As a lawyer, the applicant represented his client M. M. before the basic court in Odžaci. The procedure referred to economic dispute between two German transport companies, and the owner of one of them was M. M.
M. M. is 4. February 2004. submitted a criminal complaint against the applicant and the M. V., accusing them of receiving a bribe in exchange for the promise of a favorable outcome in its case, in the presence of certain M. V.
The investigating judge of the District Court in Sombor is 9. February 2004 heard M. M. in the presence of the applicant's lawyer. Later, M. M. and the applicant is faced, while maintaining his events. The applicant, nor his lawyer, had no questions for M. M.
The District Prosecutor's Office in Sombor is 4. May 2005 raised the indictment against the applicant for the criminal offense of receiving a bribe.
The District Court is 3. November 2006 opened the main trial. Two attempts to call M. M. was unsuccessful to the Serbian address, after which the applicant submitted information about its address in Germany. Call submission failed at a German address, after which the police tried to determine where she was across her husband, relatives and acquaintances. The district court asked the Ministry of Justice to provide submission of calls through the diplomatic budget in Munich, but it did not work either.
After the M. M. contact was finally established over the phone, she stated that for personal reasons (because the mother of a small child) could not attend trial. The applicant's lawyer is 29. August 2007 suggested that the statements of M. M. were read from the investigation procedure at trial.
The applicant is 19. in December 2007. year, found guilty, but is the Court of Court in Novi Sad 1. April 2010 abolished the first instance verdict and returned the case to re-decision.
On this occasion, contact with M. M. was established through e-mail, but it refused to attend a hearing for the main hearing for health reasons.
The applicant was on April 30, 2012. the Basic Court in Subotica condemned for the reception of a bribe. The verdict is based on the statements of M. M. and V. M. (who was present in court), documentation regarding economic dispute, and relevant files of the Basic Court in Odžaci.
The Basic Court in Subotica assessed that the management of Case by M. V. was eligible, as it was accepted in the presence of lawyers, that M. M. M. M. M. M. M. was completely consistent, logical and corrupt by other evidence.
The Court of Appeals in Novi Sad is 14. June 2012. confirmed the conviction against the applicant.
The Constitutional Court is 15. June 2015. Determining the Applicant's law in a reasonable time in Subotica in Subotica in Case 3023/10 (earlier before the District Court in the Case K. 130/05), rejecting other complaints as obviously unfounded.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted to the appointment to the court 4. January 2016. years.
In the representations, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. St. 1. And 3 (d) of the Convention, due to its inability to examine the witness M. M. whose statement referred to in the investigative procedure was used as allegedly decisive evidence for its condemnation.
Decision Court
The court found that domestic bodies have invested all reasonably expected efforts to guarantee the defense the opportunity to face M. M. at the trial. Therefore, there was a good reason for acceptance as evidence of the statement she gave the investigating judge before the main trial.
The Court also stressed that the statement of M. M. was not the only evidence that led to the conviction of the applicant. However, since its weight was not insignificant, the Court considered whether there was enough counterweight to the disabilities that accept such evidence caused by the Defense.
Since the domestic courts also assessed the statement of M. M., that its statement was coherent and corroborated by the Appointment, which, during his attorney, the M. M. at the time before the investigating judge, as well as the applicant's lawyer proposed that The statement of Witness M. M. reads as evidence in the trial in the investigation, the Court found that the factors were sufficient to compensate for the shortcomings under which the defense was treated.
In accordance with the said, the Court assessed that it cannot be said that criminal proceedings against the applicant, was observed as a whole, was unfair acceptance of the statement M. M. as evidence.
Therefore, the Court decided to reject the application as apparently unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 para. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.