The European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in proceedings against Croatian fisherman Michael Latin, who was fined by Slovenian authorities for fishing in Slovenian waters without a permit. The Court found no violation in the separate case brought by fellow fishing worker Franka Makovac.
Both applicants challenged fines imposed under Slovenia’s summary minor-offence procedure, arguing that they had been denied an oral hearing and had not been adequately informed of the evidence against them.
In Ms Makovac’s case, the Court found that the evidence included photographs showing two identifiable individuals. As she had not disputed that she was depicted in the photographs despite having access to the case file, the domestic courts were entitled to decide the case without an oral hearing. The additional evidence, comprising official records and databases, could also have been challenged had she consulted the file. The Court therefore found no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d).
By contrast, Mr Latin’s conviction relied primarily on identification by a fisheries inspector. The photographs in the case file did not clearly identify him, while the additional evidence, including social media posts, was insufficiently specified. The domestic courts had also failed to address his complaint that the relevant posts had not been identified.
The Court held that an oral hearing was essential to assess the inspector’s credibility and that the failure to specify or notify Mr Latin of the evidence in a timely manner had prevented him from effectively preparing his defence. It therefore found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b). It considered it unnecessary to examine separately his complaint concerning the examination of witnesses under Article 6 § 3 (d).
The Court indicated that reopening the proceedings would be the most appropriate means of remedying the violations in Mr Latin’s case. However, it declined to prescribe general measures concerning the alleged systemic problem, finding insufficient information to assess whether the circumstances were comparable across more than 800 similar applications against Slovenia.