FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DIMOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
(Application no. 40238/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
19 November 2024
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dimović and Others v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Tim Eicke, President,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 40238/16) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 June 2016 by four Serbian nationals (“the applicants”), whose relevant details are listed in the appended table and who were represented by Mr V. Juhas Đurić, a lawyer practising in Subotica;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Serbian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Zorana Jadrijević Mladar,
the parties’ observations;
 
Having deliberated in private on 22 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about their inability to comment on the written observations of the Higher Public Prosecutor submitted in reply to defence statements of appeal in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. 2. Following the applicants’ conviction of an attempted aggravated theft (sentenced to imprisonment), both the applicants and the Subotica Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged appeals against the first-instance court’s judgment. The parties’ appeals were transmitted to the Novi Sad Court of Appeal. The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office also submitted written observations seeking that the appeal lodged by the applicants be dismissed, that the appeal of the Subotica Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office be granted and that higher prison sentences be imposed. The Court of Appeal did not provide the applicants with a copy of the written observations submitted by the Higher Public Prosecutor. With a final judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ conviction and reduced the prison sentences in respect of all applicants. The applicants learnt about the Higher Public Prosecutor’s reply to their appeal after having received the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 3. On 26 November 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint about the non-communicated observations of the Higher Prosecutor as manifestly ill-founded, noting that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not require the second-instance courts to provide the accused with a copy of the prosecutor’s observations in reply to their appeal.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation