Communicated on 22 May 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 14746/15 Marija BOGDAN against Croatia lodged on 20 March 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns civil proceedings the applicant instituted against a hospital seeking damages for medical negligence. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the way the domestic courts assessed evidence, and about having to pay 161,681 Croatian kunas (HRK) [1] to the insurance company, which intervened in the proceedings as a third party on the side of the hospital, for the costs of its representation by an advocate. The case is similar to the case of Derbuc v. Croatia , no. 53977/14, communicated to the Government on 13 October 2016.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case in the following respects:

(a) Has there been a disproportionate restriction on the applicant ’ s right of access to a court on account of the allegedly excessive award of costs to the intervener?

(b) Was the Supreme Court ’ s decision upholding the lower-courts ’ decisions ordering the applicant to bear the intervener ’ s costs of representation by an advocate consistent with the view expressed by the same court in its judgment no. Rev-129/09-2 of 23 March 2010? If so, are there “profound and long-standing differences” in the case-law of the Supreme Court on that issue ? If there are such differences, does the domestic law provide for machinery for overcoming case-law inconsistencies, and if so, has that machinery been applied and to what effect?

(c) Do successful plaintiffs under the domestic law have a right to claim costs of proceedings from interveners who joined unsuccessful defendants? Do unsuccessful plaintiffs under the domestic law always have to pay the costs of proceedings to interveners who joined successful defendants? If the answer to both of the preceding two questions under (c) is positive, was the principle of equality of arms respected in the applicant ’ s case given that the intervener, regardless of the outcome, seem to never have been running any risk of having to pay the costs of proceedings to the applicant?

2. Was the award of costs the applicant was ordered to pay to the intervener in breach of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, 16 November 2010)?

[1] Approximately 21,416.50 euros (EUR) at the time.