Communicated on 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 63592/19 SALONA GRADITELJ D.D . against Croatia lodged on 29 November 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns civil proceedings instituted against the applicant company by an advocate for non-payment of advocate ’ s fees for the representation in another set of civil proceedings. In the course of the proceedings the applicant company argued that the advocate in question had not done his job properly, but the domestic courts eventually ruled against the applicant company.

The applicant company complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of a breach of its right to a reasoned decision in that none of the domestic courts addressed its argument that the advocate in question should not have been awarded costs for a hearing held on 19 April 2004 at which he had been replaced by his trainee who had not passed the Bar exam. The fee for that hearing alone was some 9,300 euros. Since under the domestic law an advocate in the particular proceedings could only have been replaced by a trainee who had passed the Bar exam, in the applicant company ’ s view this argument required an explicit reply by the domestic courts.

In this connection the applicant company also complains that the decision ordering it to pay the costs for the hearing held on 19 April 2004 violated its rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts address the applicant company ’ s argument that the opposing party in the civil proceedings should not have been awarded costs for the hearing held on 19 April 2004 at which he had been replaced by his trainee who had not passed the Bar exam? If not, was the failure of the domestic courts to address that argument contrary to the applicant company ’ s right to a reason ed judgment, implied in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hiro Balani v. Spain , 9 December 1994, § 28, Series A no. 303 ‑ B; Jaćimović v. Croatia , no. 22688/09, § 52, 31 October 2013; and Răchită v. Romania , no. 15987/09, § 57, 17 May 2016)?

2. Has the domestic courts ’ decision ordering the applicant company to pay the opposing party the costs for the hearing held on 19 April 2004 violated its property rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?