Radanović against Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 4. February 2025. brought, and 4. Marta announced the verdict in the case of the same yearRadanović against Serbia, No. 27794/16.
The verdict isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the non-biting opportunity to the applicant to provide its comments to the Appellate Public Prosecutor's Office submitted in response to the applicant's appeal before the Appellate Court. The Court assessed that it is impossible to participate in the proceedings before the Appeals Court, which violated the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. of the Conventionfor the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention). |
Circumstances Case
The Basic Court in Subotica, by Decision, Decision sentenced to the applicant due to the commission of the criminal offense of other people's rights. Paragraph 2. of the Criminal Code and obliged to pay the amount of 3,000 dinars. The applicant appealed against this solution. Court of Court in Novi Sadhas confirmed the first instance solution by a judgment of 5. June 2014. years.
Before making a decision on the Applicant's appeal, the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad forwarded his appeal to the Appellate Public Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad, which then submitted a submission that the applicant appeal was unfounded and should be refused. This statement of the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad did not submit to the applicant.
The applicant was then stated by the Constitutional Court constitutional appeal, and the request for the protection of legality through lawyers has also submitted.
The Supreme Court of Cassation is 17. In September 2014. he refused as an unfounded request for the protection of the applicant's lawfulers.
The Constitutional Court rejected the Constitutional Complaint Appeal 10. December 2015. years.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant filed a representation to the Court of 10. May 2016. years.
In the representations, he complained about the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. of the Convention, because he did not apply effectively in the appeal procedure and to respond to the other party's claims, since it was not known to him.
Decision Court
The court first 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 answers to the other party's guidance.
The statement of the Prosecutor's Office in Novi Sad was assessed as the position of the Prosecution on the Applicant's appeals to influence the decision of the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad, as the applicant's appeal was proposed as unfounded.
The court found that the applicant had obviously had an interest in submitting a copy of the mentioned declaration, as well as to provide him with the opportunity to answer the same if he wants.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the implemented procedure did not enable the applicant to participate in the appeal procedure before the appeal court in Novi Sad.
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 intangible damage and the amount of 1,500.00 euros in the name of cost compensation.