Published on 24 March 2025
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 39427/23
Jovan ISKRENOVIĆ
against Serbia
lodged on 23 October 2023
communicated on 7 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the misdemeanour proceedings against the applicant, in particular the alleged failure by the domestic courts to observe the principle of equality of arms concerning the collection and examination of evidence, including the witness called by the applicant during the proceedings. It also raises issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
On 21 August 2020, the Belgrade Misdemeanour Court found the applicant guilty in misdemeanour proceedings for insulting an on-duty police officer and imposed a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Misdemeanour Court on 21 September 2020, and the applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 20 June 2023. The decision was served on the applicant on 23 June 2023.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges a violation of his right to a fair trial, including the principles of equality of arms and the right to a reasoned decision. He further contends that the fine imposed on him in the misdemeanour proceedings breached his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the misdemeanour proceedings against the applicant (see Topić v. Croatia, no. 51355/10, §§ 40-49, 10 October 2013)? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017)?
 
2.  Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
 
3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the fine imposed on the applicant constitute an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Konstantin Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 35399/05, § 57, 27 October 2015)?