In Makovac and Latin v. Slovenia, the European Court of Human Rights reached different conclusions in two sets of proceedings. One applicant succeeded because there had been no oral hearing. This does not amount to general permission to fish in the disputed maritime area.
Why the distinction matters
Anyone who reads only that Croatian fishers won in Strasbourg could infer too much. Makovac and Latin v. Slovenia concerned the fairness of court proceedings over fines. The ECHR delivered its Chamber judgment on 6 October 2026. It did not redraw the maritime boundary.
That distinction is essential: whether a penalty was reviewed in a fair procedure is a different question from territorial jurisdiction across the disputed area. Even two applications in the same judgment need not have the same outcome.
The majority found no violation in Makovac's case
Franka Makovac had been fined €500 in 2018 for what was treated as an unauthorised border crossing. By five votes to two, the ECHR found no violation of Article 6. In its assessment, clear photographs were available and she could challenge their evidential value.
The judgment is therefore not a shared victory for both applicants. Summarising both proceedings as a blanket cancellation of Slovenian penalties loses precisely the distinction on which the Court based its assessment.
Latin should have had an oral hearing
Michael Latin received a fine of €840 in 2020 in connection with fishing without authorisation and failing to comply with an order to stop. His identification rested on an inspector's statement and unspecified material from social media. Here the ECHR considered an oral hearing necessary and unanimously found a violation of the right to a fair trial.
The Court's communication identifies reopening the proceedings as the appropriate avenue for redress. That is not an automatic ruling on the outcome that fresh national proceedings must reach.
What the judgment expressly does not resolve
The press release refers to more than 800 other pending cases but does not decide them. At the publication date of this article, the Chamber judgment was not final; referral to the Grand Chamber may be requested within three months.
For boat crews and fishing businesses, the news is therefore not a new licence. Existing qualification, authorisation and inspection requirements cannot be bypassed with a Strasbourg headline. Our assessment explains the subject of this judgment, not the legal solution to every individual border or fine case.
Evidence
Sources & date
Sources support the facts. Planning notes and recommendations are Golden Beach editorial assessments.
- Makovac and Latin v. SloveniaEuropean Court of Human Rights · 6 October 2026Different findings under Article 6 and the subject matter of the proceedings
- ECHR 244 (2026) – Fair trial rights in proceedings concerning fines for fishing in Slovenian watersECHR / HUDOC · 6 October 202615525/23 and 15532/23; penalties, evidence, majorities, reopening and non-final status
