Fair trial rights in minor-offence proceedings: Makovac and Latin v. Slovenia

Introduction

On 6 October 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) delivered its judgment in the case of Makovac and Latin v. Slovenia (Applications nos. 15525/23 and 15532/23; ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:1006JUD001552523). The case concerned two Croatian nationals, Ms Franka Makovac and Mr Michael Latin, who were found guilty by Slovenian authorities of minor offences connected to their fishing activities in the area of the Bay of Piran.

The central legal questions before the Court related to Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, the Court examined whether the applicants had been afforded the right to an oral hearing, the right to be informed of the evidence on which their charges and convictions were based, and the right to examine witnesses. The judgment produced different outcomes for each applicant, making it a particularly instructive illustration of how the same procedural framework can yield distinct results depending on the individual circumstances of each case.

Background and factual context

Both applicants are Croatian nationals residing in Savudrija, Croatia, and work as commercial fishing workers. According to the judgment, they frequently fished in the area of the Bay of Piran, which was defined as belonging to Slovenia by the Final Award of 29 June 2017 delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The judgment notes that further details concerning the background to the dispute leading to that Arbitration Award are set out in the earlier decision of Chelleri and Others v. Croatia.

The applicants were among a broader group of Croatian fishing workers who were repeatedly fined by Slovenian authorities for offences related to their alleged presence in Slovenian waters. The judgment records that the first applicant had lodged over 100 further applications with the Court, and the second applicant had lodged one additional application, both regarding similar proceedings arising from their fishing activities in the area of concern. The two applications at issue in this judgment belong to a group of over 800 applications against Slovenia concerning the same general subject matter.

The domestic proceedings against both applicants were conducted under section 57(1) and (4) of the Slovenian Minor Offences Act, which governs the issuance of a fine by means of a payment order in cases where the minor-offence authority either observes the offence in person or establishes it through appropriate technical means or devices, and the payment order cannot be served on the offender directly at the scene. In such situations, the offender is served by post with the payment order, accompanied by a brief description of the factual circumstances of the offence and an indication of the evidence.

Composition of the Court and procedural matters

The case was heard by the Third Section of the Court, sitting as a Chamber. The Chamber was composed of Judge Ioannis Ktistakis as President, together with Judges Peeter Roosma, Lətif Hüseynov, Darian Pavli, Diana Kovatcheva, and Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, as well as Vesna Bergant Rakočević sitting as an ad hoc judge. Milan Blaško served as Section Registrar.

The judgment records that Vasilka Sancin, the judge elected in respect of Slovenia, and Aleš Galič, an ad hoc judge previously appointed from a list submitted by the Government, were both exempted from sitting in the cases pursuant to Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court. Vesna Bergant Rakočević was subsequently appointed as ad hoc judge by the President of the Chamber.

The Croatian Government exercised their right to intervene in the proceedings as a third party in accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (b) of the Rules of Court, submitting comments to the Court. The Slovenian Government were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Grum, Senior State Attorney, and the applicants were represented by Mr R. Travaš of Travaš and Partners, a law firm based in Zagreb. The Chamber deliberated in private on 1 September 2026 and adopted the judgment on that date.

The complaints under Article 6 of the Convention

The Court gave notice to the Slovenian Government of complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in respect of three distinct but related matters. First, the applicants complained about their right to be informed of the evidence on which their charges and ensuing convictions were based, and their ability to effectively mount a defence. Second, they complained about the absence of an oral hearing in their cases. Third, they raised concerns about the right to examine witnesses against them and witnesses on their behalf.

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial in the determination of criminal charges. Article 6 § 3 (b) provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence, while Article 6 § 3 (d) provides for the right to examine or have examined witnesses against the accused and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against them.

The remainder of the applications, beyond these specific complaints, was declared inadmissible by the Court at the notice stage.

The Court's findings in respect of the first applicant

In relation to Ms Franka Makovac, the first applicant, the Court found no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d). According to the judgment's summary, the Court considered that the dispensation with an oral hearing and with the taking of witness evidence for the purpose of ascertaining the first applicant's guilt was justified in the circumstances of her case.

This finding reflects the Court's established approach that the right to an oral hearing under Article 6 is not absolute in all categories of proceedings. The Court has consistently recognised that in minor-offence or summary proceedings, where the nature of the issues to be determined does not require the personal assessment of testimony or the resolution of contested factual disputes that can only be properly addressed through oral examination, a dispensation with a hearing may be compatible with the fair trial guarantees of the Convention.

The outcome for the first applicant therefore indicates that, on the specific facts of her case, the summary procedure employed by the Slovenian authorities, including the issuance of a payment order accompanied by a description of the factual circumstances and an indication of the evidence, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 in her regard.

The Court's findings in respect of the second applicant

The Court reached a different conclusion in respect of Mr Michael Latin, the second applicant. The judgment records a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) in his case. The Court found that the second applicant's guilt could not be properly determined without assessing the evidence at an oral hearing.

Critically, the Court also found that the authorities had failed to specify and/or notify the second applicant in a timely manner of the evidence against him. This failure directly engaged Article 6 § 3 (b), which requires that an accused person have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence. Where an accused is not informed of the evidence on which the charge against them is based, or is informed too late to mount an effective defence, the minimum guarantees of a fair trial are undermined.

The distinction drawn by the Court between the two applicants is significant from an institutional and procedural standpoint. It demonstrates that even within the same domestic legal framework and the same general factual context — minor-offence proceedings related to fishing in the Bay of Piran — the compatibility of the proceedings with Article 6 must be assessed individually, having regard to the specific circumstances of each accused person's case. The absence of an oral hearing is not automatically a violation, but it becomes one where the particular circumstances of the case require the assessment of evidence that cannot be properly evaluated on the papers alone, or where the accused has not been given adequate notice of the case against them.

Significance of the judgment within the broader group of cases

The judgment situates itself within a group of over 800 applications lodged against Slovenia before the Court, all arising from the same general context of minor-offence proceedings against Croatian fishing workers operating in the area of the Bay of Piran. This context gives the judgment a significance that extends beyond the individual circumstances of the two applicants.

The Court's differentiated approach — finding no violation in respect of one applicant and a violation in respect of the other — provides guidance on the criteria that will be applied when assessing the compatibility of summary minor-offence proceedings with Article 6 of the Convention. The judgment underlines that the procedural adequacy of such proceedings depends on whether the accused was properly informed of the evidence against them and whether the nature of the factual issues at stake required an oral hearing for their proper determination.

The intervention of the Croatian Government as a third party under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention further reflects the broader political and legal dimensions of the dispute concerning the Bay of Piran, which has its origins in the Arbitration Award of 29 June 2017. However, the Court's analysis in this judgment is confined to the fair trial guarantees of Article 6 and does not address the underlying territorial or jurisdictional dispute.

Conclusion

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Makovac and Latin v. Slovenia, delivered on 6 October 2026, offers a careful and individualised analysis of the fair trial requirements under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention in the context of summary minor-offence proceedings. The Court found no violation in respect of the first applicant, Ms Franka Makovac, concluding that the dispensation with an oral hearing and witness evidence was justified on the facts of her case. In contrast, the Court found a violation in respect of the second applicant, Mr Michael Latin, on the grounds that his guilt could not be properly determined without an oral hearing and that the authorities had failed to specify and/or notify him in a timely manner of the evidence against him.

The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to an oral hearing and the right to be informed of the evidence forming the basis of a charge are not merely formal requirements but substantive guarantees whose application must be assessed in light of the specific circumstances of each individual case. Institutions and authorities conducting summary or minor-offence proceedings should be attentive to these requirements, particularly where the determination of guilt depends on the assessment of evidence that may not be adequately evaluated without an oral hearing, and where the accused must be given sufficient notice of the case against them to mount an effective defence.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources consulted

• CASE OF MAKOVAC AND LATIN v. SLOVENIA - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe