CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   Communicated on 7 March 2013, 16 June 2014 and 25 September 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no 52195/12 Vida NOVAK against Slovenia lodged on 8 August 2012 The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the legal fees incurred by the applicant in the proceedings instituted under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay had been reimbursed only in a small part despite the applicant being successful with her principal claim?   2.     In particular, did the limited reimbursement of legal fees, based on the then valid Attorney Tariff Act (Official Gazette no. 67/2008), result in a restriction which impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to court (see, mutatis mutandis, Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, §§ 87-97, 18   July 2013, and Stankov v. Bulgaria , no. 68490/01, §§ 50-67, 12 July 2007)?   3.     What would have been the reimbursable amount of the lawyer’s fees in comparable ordinary civil proceedings at the relevant time and what would have been the amount in proceedings, such as the applicant’s, on the basis of the subsequent Attorney Tariff applicable from 10 January 2015?   4.     Bearing in mind that the impugned Attorney Tariff Act had been repealed already on 9 May 2009, why has the new Attorney Tariff been applicable only from 10 January 2015?