Milenko Muscle I ad Cargo Transport Pine
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is3. December 2024. brought, and 16. January 2025. published a decision in caseMilenko Mišić and AD Freight transport Pine against Serbia, No. 59268/16.
The decision isdoneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the refusal of domestic courts to reach the compensation of the costs of misdemeanor proceedings, allegedly contrary to the domestic case law on this issue. The applicants complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial. The court rejected the application by assessing that the applicants had not suffered significant damage. |
Circumstances Case
The Applicant Milenko Mišić (hereinafter: the applicant) is the Head of the Transport Department ad freight transport Pine (hereinafter: the Company applicant).
The police, after viewing the applicant's vehicle's vehicle, submitted a request for initiating misdemeanor proceedings against applicants and drivers.
The applicants and the vehicle driver are 10. September 2010. Years hired a defense counsel who will represent them in misdemeanor proceedings. They submitted during the Procedure Court of submissions, and later, they asked the court to suspend the proceedings due to obsolescence.
Misdemeanor court in Kragujevac (Knić Department) is 26. November 2012. suspended the misdemeanor proceedings against the applicants for the advance of obsolescence.
After the suspension of misdemeanor proceedings, the applicants also applied for compensation and payment of costs of 43,400 dinars, which later increased at 101,850 dinars, or 166,350 dinars. They were looking for a defense rate compensation and administrative and postal costs incurred in connection with submissions and requests for suspension of the proceedings.
Misdemeanor court in Kragujevac (Department of Knić) is 12. February 2014. year, their request rejected that he was submitted by an unauthorized person.
Deciding on the appeal of the applicants, the misdemeanor Court (department in Kragujevac), was reversed by the first instance solution and the judgment refuses that the lawyer was not involved in preparing previous submissions, The procedure was unnecessary since the first instance court was supposed to suspend the process at the expiration of the deadline of obsolescence.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings, 22. April 2014. submitted a constitutional court constitutional complaint, arguing that the case for the costs and expenses after suspension of misdemeanor proceedings were not uniform. With the addition of the Constitutional Appeal from 9. November 2015. they submitted two judgments of misdemeanor court in favor of their complaint about uneven court practice.
The Constitutional Court is 1. December 2015. The applicants only formally invoke the applicants to a fair trial, and essentially require that the Constitutional Court further examine the legality of the disputed decisions, and to state constitutional complaints They cannot accept as constitutional reasons for claiming the violation of the Constitution of the rights.
Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures
The applicants submitted the application to the court 13. June 2016. years.
In the representations, they complained about the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), claiming that the decision of domestic misdemeanor courts are not compensated for the costs of the proceedings with the usual court practice in similar cases.
Decision Court
The government pointed out that the applicants have not exhausted effective domestic remedies, as well as that the applicant - ad freight transport Bor - cannot have a victim's status in terms of Article 34. Convention, as 75% of its capital is owned by the state.
The Court did not consider the Government's complaints, as it assessed that the application is certainly unacceptable, because the applicants did not suffer significant damage. This for the reason that the Court found that the applicants did not claim the costs and expenses of misdemeanor proceedings, nor did they provide evidence that their financial situation is such that the outcome of the case issue significantly affects it. The Court also pointed to the fact that there is no evidence in the submissions in the applicants that they actually denied these costs, ie that they were obliged to pay them.
ThereforeThe court made the decision to reject the application as inadmissible, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. st. 3 (b) and 4. Convention, as the applicants are not significantly damaged.