5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ljubljana. 6.  On 28 September 2004 at 4.30 a.m., the applicant was pulled over in her car by Police Officer S., who ordered her to undergo a breathalyser test. According to the applicant, despite five attempts, the test was unsuccessful as no result appeared on the screen. 7.  On 14 October 2004 the police charged the applicant with an offence under paragraph 7 of section 120 of the Road Traffic Safety Act, which she had allegedly committed by blowing into the breathalyser insufficiently and thereby disregarding the instructions on the use of the breathalyser. The ensuing proceedings were conducted under the Minor Offences Act 1983, according to which the courts have jurisdiction to decide on charges concerning minor offences. 8.  On 2 February 2005 the applicant was summoned to appear before the Ljubljana Local Court but the summons was returned to the court undelivered. On 12 April 2005 the court sent a new summons, which was served on the applicant on 22 April 2005. However, further to a medical certificate stating that the applicant was on sick leave during the relevant period, the hearing was cancelled. A new summons was served on the applicant on 5 September 2005. Four days later the applicant informed the court that she would be represented by a lawyer, M., in the proceedings. M. requested a postponement of the hearing scheduled for 12 September 2005 in order to consult the file and prepare the defence. His request was granted. 9.  The next hearing of the applicant was scheduled for 3 October 2005 at 8.35 a.m. The court also scheduled an examination of Police Officer S. for the same day at 8 a.m. The summons concerning the applicant’s hearing was served on her representative, but not on the applicant, who failed to collect the letter. Neither the hearing of the applicant nor the examination of S. took place on 3 October 2005. 10.  On 13 September 2005 the court ordered that the applicant be brought before it by force. This order was subsequently cancelled. 11.  On 20 January 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court summoned the applicant to appear before it. The summons was not served on her but left at the post office. As she failed to collect it, the summons was served on her representative on 30 January 2006. The applicant failed to appear before the judge on the scheduled date. 12.  On 9 February 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court judge examined Police Officer S., who testified that on the day in question she had seen the applicant swerving from side to side in her car. After pulling her over, she had smelled alcohol on her breath and noticed that she lacked coordination. The police officer also stated that she believed that the applicant had been so drunk that she had been unable to blow properly into the breathalyser. Moreover, she maintained that she had ordered a medical examination, which the applicant had refused to undergo. 13.  On 17 May 2006 the court ordered that a summons for the applicant to appear before the court be served by a special company, which served the summons on the applicant on 19 May 2006. 14.  On 26 May 2006 the applicant received copies of the records concerning the examination of S. and of the report on the use of the breathalyser. 15.  On 1 June 2006 the applicant was heard by the judge. She stated that she had been returning from holiday on the day in question. After being stopped she had followed the police officer’s instructions concerning the use of the breathalyser. However, every time she had blown into the device, it turned itself off and the police officer had needed to restart it. The applicant disputed the allegation that she had refused to comply with the police officer’s order to blow into the breathalyser, stating that she had in fact blown into it five times unsuccessfully. She further stated that she had declined to sign the police report as the police officer had refused to add her comments concerning the problems with the breathalyser and had instead noted that she had medical problems with her lungs, which was not true. The applicant requested a cross-examination of the police officer. 16.  On the same day the applicant also filed a written statement disputing the police officer’s allegation that she appeared to be drunk and contesting the allegation that the officer had ordered her to undergo a medical examination. The applicant also informed the court that she had changed her representative to lawyer D. 17.  On 4 July 2006 the judge again heard the police officer, who was asked to give her account of the incident of 28 September 2004. She said that she always checked whether the device was working before taking it with her and had done so on the day in question. The officer further stated, inter alia, the following: the applicant had told her that she had been returning from a party; the applicant had not asked for comments to be added to the report; the applicant herself had mentioned that she had medical problems, which had been noted in the report; and the applicant had been so drunk that she had been unable to blow properly into the breathalyser. 18.  On 10 July 2006 the court rendered a decision finding the applicant guilty of an offence under paragraph 7 of section 120 of the Road Traffic Safety Act for blowing into the breathalyser insufficiently and thereby disregarding the instructions for the use of the breathalyser. The court summarised the statements given by the applicant and the police officer and noted that it had obtained an instruction manual for the breathalyser. Finding that the police officer was convincing in her account, which conflicted with the applicant’s, the court concluded that the applicant had committed the aforementioned offence with direct intent. The court rejected the applicant’s request for cross-examination of the police officer on the grounds that (i) the police officer had twice been examined by the court and had given a coherent account of the incident; and (ii) it was likely that the applicant would not attend any cross-examination since she had had to be summoned to her hearing several times. The applicant was fined 100,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT) and her driving licence was permanently confiscated. She was also ordered to pay court expenses of SIT 40,000. 19.  On 20 July 2006 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court. She complained, inter alia, that the lower court had refused to allow a cross-examination of the witness and that the police officer had been examined in the absence of her lawyer and herself. 20.  On 21 September 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal but changed the verdict, which now read that the applicant was guilty of refusing to undergo a medical examination. The sentence remained the same. The applicant was also ordered to pay SIT 40,000 in court expenses. The Higher Court found the following:
“It can be seen from the collected evidence that the accused was first ordered to undergo a breathalyser test, which she had performed improperly, referring to an alleged medical problem with her lungs, and that she refused to sign the report, for which reason a medical examination was ordered, which she also refused to undergo. These circumstances are borne out by the bill of indictment, the police report and the testimony of Officer S. who was twice examined in the proceedings and provided a detailed account of the procedure in which the applicant had been involved ... It was not important in the instant case whether or not the accused referred to her medical problems, since the medical examination had to be ordered on the basis of the mere fact that the accused refused to sign the report. The officer therefore knew her duty and ordered the medical examination, as can be seen from her testimony and the report ...” 21.  The Higher Court further noted that the police officer had been examined by the judge before the applicant had made her request for cross-examination and that it had been obvious from S.’s first examination that she had ordered the medical examination. In the Higher Court’s view, the second examination of the officer was of no significance and the applicant’s defence rights had therefore not been violated. 22.  On 8 November 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal in which she complained, inter alia, that her request to cross-examine the witness, the police officer, had been ignored and that a hearing at which the witness had been heard had been held in her absence and that of her lawyer, who had never been informed of it. The credibility of a witness could be tested only through cross-examination. The applicant also requested that the impugned decisions be suspended pending the ruling of the Constitutional Court. The request was rejected on 20 November 2006. 23.  On 12 November 2006 the applicant also requested that the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office lodge a request for protection of legality. The request was refused on 3 January 2007. 24.  On 20 December 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 11 January 2008.