Communicated on 8 September 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 32953/13
Matko ŠKRLJ
against Croatia
lodged on 6 May 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Matko Škrlj, is a Croatian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Rijeka. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Milanović, a lawyer practising in Umag.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 February 2012 the Buzet Police Station (Policijska uprava istarska, Policijska postaja Buzet) issued a penalty notice, having found the applicant guilty of several minor road traffic offences.
The applicant challenged that penalty before the Pazin Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Pazinu, Stalna Služba u Buzetu). The case was assigned to Judge B.L.V.
On 15 June 2012, at the applicant’s request, the President of the Pazin Minor Offences Court exempted Judge B.L.V. from dealing with another set of proceedings against the applicant. She found that the judge himself had asked not to hear the case, citing animosity between himself and the applicant’s mother, who was also a judge.
On 28 June 2012 the applicant asked the President of the Pazin Minor Offences Court also to exempt Judge B.L.V. from dealing with the proceedings in which he was challenging the penalty notice of 29 February 2012.
The President of the Pazin Minor Offences Court never dealt with that request.
On 6 July 2012 Judge B.L.V., sitting as a single judge of the Pazin Minor Offences Court, found the applicant guilty in respect of the charges preferred in the penalty notice of 29 February 2012. He fined the applicant 1,000 Croatian kunas (approximately 130 euros) and ordered a term of imprisonment in default of payment.
The applicant challenged that judgment before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of the Pazin Minor Offences Court.
On 17 October 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 9 November 2012.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, owing to Judge B.L.V.’s involvement in the case, he was not tried by an impartial court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy