FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LETONJE v. SLOVENIA
(Application no. 10397/20)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
6 July 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Letonje v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 10397/20) against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 February 2020 by a Slovenian national, Mr Jure Letonje, born in 1993 and living in Velenje (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr R. Pograjc, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Slovenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms A. Dežman Mušič, Senior State Attorney, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 June 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the lack of an oral hearing during minor offence proceedings against the applicant. 2. The applicant was accused of indecent conduct against police officers (nedostojno vedenje) under the Protection of Public Order Act. The police imposed a fine of 417.29 euros (EUR) on the applicant, who lodged a request for judicial protection in which he disputed the police officers’ statements concerning his conduct. 3. The Celje Local Court dismissed his request and upheld the payment order on the basis of the file forwarded by the police, which contained the payment order, the statement of facts prepared by the police and the applicant’s request for judicial protection. It rejected the applicant’s motion “to examine all witnesses” on the ground that it was unsubstantiated. No hearing was held. 4. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Local Court’s judgment. The Constitutional Court, relying on section 55.a(1), the fourth indent of section 55.a(2) and section 55.a(3) as well as the third indent of 55.b(1) in connection with the fourth indent of section 55.a(2) of the Constitutional Court Act, rejected it because the applicant had not made a reasoned proposal for exceptional consideration of a constitutional complaint. 5. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Local Court did not hold a public hearing where he and the witnesses could have been examined.

Outcome for Article 6: violation