On 6 July 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case of Letonje v. Slovenia that the applicant’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been violated in the proceedings before the national court.
Proceedings before the county court
The applicant was fined 417,29 EUR for misconduct in front of police officers, i.e. for breach of public order. The applicant lodged a demand for judicial protection challenging the allegations made by the police officers concerning his conduct. The case was heard by the County Court in Celje, which rejected his demand for judicial protection and confirmed the payment order.
The Court ruled on the basis of written documentation received from the police, which included the contested payment order, the police’s summary of the facts and the applicant’s request for judicial protection. In doing so, the Court refused the applicant’s request to “hear all witnesses” and did not hold an oral hearing.
Constitutional appeal
The applicant then lodged a constitutional appeal against the judgment of the County Court. The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant had failed to submit a reasoned proposal for an exceptional hearing of the constitutional appeal, thereby failing to exhaust domestic remedies. The ECtHR rejected this argument, citing the case of Rutar and Rutar Marketing, d.o.o. v Slovenia. [1]
Violation of rights
In the proceedings before the ECtHR, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial), which states that everyone has the right to have their civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge against them decided fairly and publicly and within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The ECtHR found that the facts of the case were disputed and that an oral hearing could be essential to protect the interests of the applicant. Although the applicant did not expressly request an oral hearing, he asked to “hear all witnesses”, which was refused by the County Court. The ECtHR therefore finds that the failure to hold an oral hearing was inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 6 (1) of the Convention, which constitutes a violation of that provision.[2]
Just satisfaction
The ECtHR also considered the applicant’s claims under Article 41 ECHR (just satisfaction). The applicant claimed 6.048,00 EUR for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 515,00 EUR for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the ECtHR.
The Court did not establish a causal link between the violation of the Convention and the alleged pecuniary damage and therefore dismissed the claim. In regards to the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the ECtHR considered, in the light of established case-law, that the finding of a violation already constituted sufficient just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.
Costs of the proceedings
The Court, however, granted the applicant’s claim for costs and awarded him 465,00 EUR for costs and expenses, together with any tax and interest.
Written by: Manca Trček
[1] Rutar and Rutar Marketing, d.o.o. v. Slovenia, No. 21164/20, dated 15 December 2022. In this instance the Court ruled that it was not clear from any of the decisions relied on by the Government that the Constitutional Court was in a position to assess whether the conditions for an exceptional hearing of the case had been substantively fulfilled. The court came to this decision based on the fact that at the time of lodging the constitutional complaint, the applicant had not expressly made a submission regarding an important question of constitutional law.
[2] Case Flisar, paragraphs 37-39, and Berdajs v. Slovenia, No. 10390/09, dated 27 March 2012.