Background
Croatian commercial fishing workers Franka Makovac and Michael Latin were fined by Slovenian authorities for minor offences arising from fishing activities in the Bay of Piran, in waters awarded to Slovenia by a 2017 arbitral decision. Makovac received a €500 fine for unlawful border crossing. Latin received cumulative fines of €840 for fishing without a Slovenian permit and obstructing a fisheries inspector by failing to stop his vessel.
Both applicants sought judicial protection, disputing how they had been identified and arguing that Croatian police escorts and assurances from Croatian authorities had led them to believe they remained in Croatian waters. They requested examination of visual material and witnesses. The Koper Local Court rejected their challenges without an oral hearing, and the Higher Court upheld those decisions, reasoning that the applicants had not specifically disputed decisive facts or offered evidence capable of undermining the authorities’ findings. Slovenia’s Constitutional Court declined to examine their constitutional complaints.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that Makovac’s proceedings did not violate Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(b) and (d). It concluded that dispensing with an oral hearing and declining to take the requested witness evidence were justified in the circumstances of her case.
By contrast, the Court unanimously found that Latin’s proceedings violated Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(b). His guilt could not properly be determined without assessing the evidence at an oral hearing, and the authorities had failed to identify or notify him sufficiently and promptly of the evidence against him, impairing his ability to prepare his defence. The Court found it unnecessary to decide separately whether refusing to examine witnesses also violated Article 6 § 3(d).
The Court said reopening Latin’s domestic proceedings, if requested, would be the most appropriate remedy. It declined to prescribe general measures despite more than 800 similar applications against Slovenia, because the violation rested on the specific circumstances of Latin’s case. The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction, and his claims for damages, costs, and expenses were rejected.
Key Takeaways
- A court may dispense with an oral hearing in minor-offence proceedings when the particular issues can fairly be resolved from the written record, as the majority found in Makovac’s case.
- An oral hearing is required where determining guilt depends on assessing disputed evidence that cannot properly be evaluated on the papers, as in Latin’s case.
- Authorities must specify and disclose the evidence supporting a charge early and precisely enough to permit an effective defence; a general ability to inspect a case file does not necessarily cure inadequate notice.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes between two superficially similar minor-offence cases and underscores that Article 6 compliance depends on the concrete evidentiary and procedural circumstances. Even for comparatively modest fines, courts must hold a hearing when resolving liability requires direct assessment of contested evidence and must give defendants timely, sufficiently specific notice of the case against them.
Although the Court declined for now to identify a systemic defect or order general measures, it noted the large volume of related applications and left open the possibility of doing so if future cases establish a broader pattern. Latin may seek reopening under Slovenian law after the judgment becomes final.