FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 19922/16 Stanko MILAS and Patricia MILAS against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 March 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay, President, Alena Poláčková, Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 19922/16) against Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 March 2016 by two Croatian nationals, Mr Stanko Milas and Ms Patricia Milas, who were born in 1931 and 1957 respectively and live in Zagreb (“the applicants”);

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the right to an impartial tribunal to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court judge who sat in the three-judge panel that heard their appeal on points of law in the civil proceedings was not impartial because his wife was employed at the defendant company.

2. In 2004 the applicants instituted civil proceedings seeking compensation for legal services provided to the defendant company. The civil courts dismissed the applicants’ claim as unfounded. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision. In a constitutional complaint the applicants alleged that the wife of the Supreme Court judge, who had acted as a judge rapporteur in the proceedings, had been employed at the defendant company. The Constitutional Court, by a decision which was served to the applicants on 1 October 2015, dismissed their constitutional complaint as unfounded.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

3. The Court does not need to examine all the arguments raised by the parties as the complaint is in way inadmissible for the following reasons.

4. The relevant principles concerning impartiality of tribunals have been summarised in Denisov v. Ukraine ([GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 61-63, 25 September 2018) and Morice v. France ([GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78, 23 April 2015).

5. The Court observes that the applicants did not claim, and there is nothing to indicate, any personal bias on the part of the Supreme Court judge in question. As to whether the applicants’ doubts regarding that judge’s lack of impartiality may be regarded as objectively justified, the Court notes that the judge’s wife had not been employed at the defendant company for seven years by the time the Supreme Court decided the applicants’ case. The Court also notes that, while the judge’s wife worked at the defendant company, it had 1,300 employees, and there is no indication that she had any link to her employer’s business interactions with the applicants or to what later turned out to be the subject matter of the civil proceedings.

6. Accordingly, the applicants’ fear about the Supreme Court judge’s lack of impartiality due to his wife’s former employment at the defendant company cannot be regarded as being objectively justified (compare, mutatis mutandis, Otegi Mondragon and Others v. Spain (dec.), nos. 4184/15 et al ., §§ 25-27, 3 November 2015, and contrast Ramljak v. Croatia , no. 5856/13, §§ 31, 35, and 37, 27 June 2017, and Malić v. Croatia (Committee), no. 8402/17, §§ 19 and 22, 22 April 2021).

7. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

8. The applicants further complained that the Supreme Court judge in question could not be considered independent and impartial because the defendant company was a State-owned company. The Court notes that the applicants were served with the final domestic decision in their case on 1 October 2015, whereas they raised this complaint for the first time in their observations of 9 August 2018 (compare Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 137-39, 20 March 2018).

9. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 28 April 2022.

Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay Deputy Registrar President