Communicated on 28 June 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 57860/14 Vedrana BILAN against Croatia lodged on 7 August 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Vedrana Bilan , is a Croatian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Split. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Medak, a lawyer practising in Split.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a notary public. In extensive correspondence with the Notaries Association she strongly criticised the members of its administrative board and its president, accusing them of wrongdoing. In reaction thereto, the president of the Notaries Association warned the applicant about her conduct several times, in writing. A record of these warnings was entered into her personal file kept by the Notaries Association.

Attempts by the applicant to seek judicial review of these warnings failed because the Administrative Court declared her action inadmissible. That court and the Constitutional Court both held that, while the Notaries Act indeed provided for judicial review of any decision determining the rights or obligations of a notary, the warnings at issue did not concern or affect such rights or obligations in any way.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the refusal of the judicial authorities to hear her case on the merits amounted to denial of access to court.

She also complains under Article 10, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, that the warnings in question violated her freedom of expression and that she did not have an effective remedy to protect it.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have access to court in respect of determination of her civil rights and obligations?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?

3. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?