Communicated on 18 December 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 47833/13 Duško URUKALO against Croatia lodged on 17 July 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Duško Urukalo , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Šibenik . He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Čogelja , a lawyer practising in Šibenik .

The circumstances of the case

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

In 1994 the applicant, at the time a four-year old child, underwent an eye surgery in the Zagreb “ Sveti Duh” Hospital (hereinafter: the “hospital”).

After the surgery the applicant ’ s health condition deteriorated and eventually he totally lost sight on one eye and developed sight impairment on the other.

On 8 December 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action against the hospital in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ( Op ć inski gra đ anski sud u Zagrebu ) seeking damages in relation to the alleged medical negligence.

During the proceedings, the trial court commissioned several expert reports, which the applicant challenged. He attempted to have further medical experts questioned but the trial court dismissed his requests as irrelevant.

On 23 October 2010 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court dismissed the applicant ’ s civil action on the grounds that the expert reports did not suggest any malpractice in the applicant ’ s medical treatment.

This judgment was confirmed on appeal by the Zagreb County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zagrebu ) on 5 April 2011.

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and the Supreme Court dismissed it as ill-founded on 27 June 2012.

The applicant further lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining about the manner in which the lower courts had dealt with his case.

On 17 January 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 28 January 2013.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, about the lack of an effective domestic procedure concerning his allegations of medical negligence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing within a reasonable time in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention on account of any failure on the part of the domestic authorities to comply with their procedural obligations under this provision (see Csoma v. Romania , no. 8759/05, §§ 41-43 and 53, 15 January 2013; and mutatis mutandis , Kudra v. Croatia , no. 13904/07, §§ 104-105, 18 December 2012)?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant ’ s case.