Published on 25 July 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 20319/21 Ivan KOBAÅ against Croatia lodged on 8 April 2021 communicated on 6 July 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the domestic courts’ decision to declare inadmissible the applicant’s request for reopening of the criminal proceedings against him. The request was based on the judgment in the case of Kobaš v. Croatia [Committee], no. 27228/14, 4 October 2018 where the Court found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention because the applicant had not been invited to the session of the appeal panel.

The domestic courts decided so because the applicant did not submit a translation into Croatian of the Court’s judgment on which he based his request. Specifically, the first-instance court invited him to do so without giving him a time-limit to comply with that request. Since the applicant did not submit the requested translation, after eleven months the first-instance court declared his request for reopening inadmissible. The applicant appealed and submitted the translation, but the appellate court dismissed his appeal.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of the lack of access to a court.

The applicant also complains of the lack of impartiality because the judge who had sat in the panel of the second-instance court in the initial proceedings in respect of which the Court found a violation, also sat in the second-instance court’s panel which dismissed his appeal against the first-instance decision to declare his request for reopening inadmissible.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for reopening (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 60-72, 11 July 2017, and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 44-50, 5 February 2015)?

2. If so:

(a) Was the decision of the domestic courts to declare inadmissible the applicant’s request for reopening of proceedings in breach of his right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

(b) Was the second-instance court which decided on the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision declaring inadmissible his request for reopening impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are also invited to inform the Court when was the translation into Croatian of the Court’s judgment in the case of Kobaš v. Croatia [Committee], no. 27228/14, 4 October 2018 published on the website of the Office of the Representative of the Republic of Croatia before the ECHR.