Communicated on 10 July 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 31680/12 Marija BJELIK and O thers against Croatia lodged on 24 April 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 10 March 2003 A.V.B., the applicant s ’ legal predecessor, concluded an agreement with his employer on termination of employment with effect of 31 March 2003.

By this agreement the employer was obliged to pay to A.V.B. a severance pay in the amount of 1,974,293, 20 Croatian kunas (HRK).

On 2 4 March 2003 A.V.B. died.

On an unknown date the applicants brought a civil action against their legal predecessor ’ s employer before the Osijek Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Osijeku ), seeking payment of a severance pay in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement of 10 March 2003.

On 15 December 2004 the Osijek Municipal Court accepted the applicants ’ claim.

The defendant lodged an appeal with the Osijek Count y Court ( Županijski sud u Osijeku ) which was dismissed as ill-founded on 7 December 2006.

The defendant than lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with the Supreme Court.

On 7 March 2007 the applicants were served with the defendant ’ s appea l on points of law and invited to give their reply, which they submitted on 15 March 2007 .

On 23 December 2008 the Supreme Court accepted the appeal on points of law, reversed the lower court ’ s judgements and dismissed the applicant ’ s claim as unfounded. However, the Supreme Court did not consider the applicants ’ reply to the appeal on points of law. Moreover, it stated that the applicants had failed to submit their reply to the appeal on points of law.

The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint.

The Constitutional Court established that the applicants ’ reply had been submitted on 15 March 2007 and that it had been in the case file. However, that court considered that the applicants ’ right to a fair trial had not been violated and on 10 November 2011 it dismissed the applicants ’ constitutional complaint as ill-founded.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right to a fair hearing was violated when the Supreme Court failed to address their reply to the defendant ’ s appeal on points of law upon which that court reversed the lower courts ’ judgements and ruled against the applicants.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

Appendix