The case of *Iskrenovi\u0107 v. Serbia* (application no. 39427\/23) concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial in the context of minor-offence proceedings. The applicant was convicted of insulting police officers during a period of civil unrest in Belgrade, with his conviction based almost exclusively on the testimony of the arresting officer. Throughout the proceedings, the applicant sought to introduce video surveillance footage and the testimony of a witness who had come forward via social media to corroborate his version of events. The domestic courts repeatedly rejected these requests, claiming the evidence was unnecessary or irrelevant without providing a substantive, reasoned justification. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that this refusal, which effectively prevented the applicant from challenging the prosecution\u2019s case, undermined the overall fairness of the trial. Consequently, the Court ruled that Serbia violated Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.<\/p>\n
### Structure and Main Provisions
\nThe judgment follows the standard structure of an ECtHR ruling:
\n1. **Introduction and Facts:** Outlines the background of the 2020 COVID-19 protests in Serbia and the specific dispute regarding the applicant’s arrest.
\n2. **Relevant Legal Framework:** Details the Serbian Public Order Act and the Minor Offences Act, specifically the provisions regarding evidence assessment and the right to a reasoned judgment.
\n3. **The Law (Admissibility and Merits):** The Court confirms that minor-offence proceedings involving potential imprisonment fall under the “criminal limb” of Article 6. It applies the three-pronged *Murtazaliyeva* test to determine if the refusal to hear witnesses or admit evidence violated the right to a fair trial.
\n4. **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awards EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage, noting that the statutory limitation period for the underlying offence likely precludes the possibility of a meaningful retrial.<\/p>\n
Compared to previous jurisprudence, this decision reinforces the “full stringency” of fair trial guarantees even in expedited minor-offence proceedings, especially when those proceedings carry the risk of custodial sentences.<\/p>\n
### Key Provisions for Legal Application
\nFor practitioners, the following points are the most critical:<\/p>\n
* **The Three-Pronged Test (*Murtazaliyeva*):** The Court reaffirmed that to assess a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d), one must evaluate: (1) whether the request for evidence was sufficiently reasoned and relevant; (2) whether the domestic courts provided sufficient reasons for their refusal; and (3) whether the refusal undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings.
\n* **Duty to Provide Reasons:** The judgment emphasizes that domestic courts cannot simply state that “facts are already established” to reject defense evidence. They must engage in a genuine, substantive assessment of the probative value of the proposed evidence.
\n* **Equality of Arms:** The Court clarified that even if a video recording lacks audio, it may still be highly relevant to establish the “spatial configuration” of an incident or the physical positioning of parties, which can directly contradict a police officer’s account.
\n* **Scope of “Criminal Charge”:** The decision serves as a reminder that the label of “minor offence” under domestic law does not exempt a state from the full rigor of Article 6 guarantees if the potential penalty includes imprisonment or if the proceedings are punitive in nature.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
*Note: While this specific case concerns Serbia, the principles regarding the right to call witnesses and the necessity of reasoned judicial decisions are foundational to the European Convention on Human Rights and are frequently applied in the Court’s jurisprudence concerning other member states, including **** cases involving the Ukrainian judicial system, where the Court has consistently held that the failure to properly address defense evidence constitutes a breach of the right to a fair trial.*<\/p>\n