CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s4F530F05 { width:21.25pt; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 22 May 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24740/15 Vladimir ROMAC and others against Croatia lodged on 12 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants live in a small community that is located in the close vicinity of a rock exploitation site. They challenged before the Administrative Court the relevant Ministry’s decision approving an environmental study that served as a basis for the approval of a further rock exploitation of the site. In the course of the proceedings, the Administrative Court did not forward to the applicants the Ministry’s and a third party’s submissions concerning the applicants’ administrative action. At the same time, the Administrative Court relied on the submissions and the documents submitted in their support. The applicants challenged the Administrative Court’s judgment before the Constitutional Court in February 2010 and the Constitutional Court dismissed their constitutional complaint on 5   November 2014. It held that the Administrative Court’s failure to forward the opposing parties’ submissions to the applicants did not call into question the outcome of the proceedings. The applicants contend that the Administrative Court breached their right to an adversarial trial and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were inordinately lengthy. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable under its civil head to the proceedings in the present case (see Athanassoglou and Others v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, §§ 43-55, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, and L’Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium , no. 49230/07, §§ 24-30, ECHR 2009 (extracts))?   2.     If so, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial trial respected in the proceedings before the Administrative Court with regard to the Administrative Court’s failure to forward the Ministry’s and the third party’s submission to the applicants (see Maravić Markeš v. Croatia , no. 70923/11, 9 January 2014)?   3.     Was the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court in breach of the applicants’ right to a trial within reasonable time (see, for instance, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 109, ECHR   2010, and Šikić v. Croatia , no. 9143/08, §§ 37-38, 15 July 2010)?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ case. APPENDIX         Vladimir ROMAC, born in 1957, lives in Pazin;     Damir BROZAN, born in 1962, lives in Pazin;     Zvonko ZOVIĆ, born in 1956, lives in Gračišće;     Karlo ZOVIĆ, lives in Pazin.   The applicants are represented by Ksenija Grba, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.