CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 23 January 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31619/16 Marijana KRASIĆ against Croatia lodged on 30 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the lack of access to a court in the enforcement proceedings in which the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s application for restoring the proceedings to status quo ante ( restitutio in integrum ob terminem elapsum ) asking the court that her appeal against the enforcement order be examined because it had not been served on her, as provided for by the procedural rules, but on her mother. She asked the court to conduct a graphology expert testimony and to hear her and her mother’s oral evidence, which was refused. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts’ decisions in compliance with the provision of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s right of access to a court?