FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 16128/08
Kristina PETRUSEVSKI
against Slovenia
lodged on 28 March 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Kristina Petrusevski, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Grosuplje. Her application was lodged on 28 March 2008.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 August 2006 the applicant, driving a car, was stopped by police. She was issued a payment order accusing her of driving on the emergency lane in breach of section 110 (17) of the Road Traffic Safety Act. The payment order contained information concerning the location of the offence, the car and the aforementioned legal qualification and an indication of a fine of 50,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 200 euros (EUR)). It contained no further details.
On 23 august 2006 the applicant lodged a request for judicial review in which she alleged, inter alia, that her car had broken down due to overheating and that for that reason she had resorted to the emergency lane.
On 28 June 2007 the Grosuplje Local Court rejected her request on the basis of the payment order and the statement of facts submitted by the police. The court found that the facts, which were personally observed by the police officer, were correctly established, that there were no procedural violation and the sanction was rightly applied. The applicant was ordered to pay EUR 50 for court fees.
On 18 September 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal in which she complained of a violation of her fair trial guarantees.
On 24 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional appeal. It relied on point three of the first paragraph of section 55b read together with point four of the second paragraph of section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant domestic law and practice see Suhadolc v. Slovenia(dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011.
In addition, section 110 of the Road Traffic Safety Act (Official Gazette no. 3/2004, implemented on 1 January 2005) reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“(10) It is forbidden to drive, park or stop on the emergency lane, except in the case of emergency.
...
(17) The person who acts contrary to the second, ninth and tenth paragraph of this section shall be punished with the fine of 50,000 Slovenian tolars.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that her conviction was based on the facts subjectively observed by the police and that she did not have a public hearing and the opportunity to defend herself in person or to adduce evidence in her favour before a court, in breach of her right to a fair hearing as provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Constitutional Court declined to deal with her constitutional appeal and merely referred to section 55a of the Constitutional Court Act, which had entered into force after the constitutional appeal had been lodged. She argues that this decision of the Constitutional Court denied her the right of access to court and retroactively interfered with her rights.
In addition, the applicant complains that there was a breach of the presumption of innocence and that, contrary to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, no appeal against the local court’s judgment was possible.
Lastly, the applicant complains that the police had interfered with her right to liberty, as she had been stopped without a warning.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the lack of a court hearing, did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy