CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2019

.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 22 January 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 47453/17 Davor GJURAŠIN against Croatia lodged on 30 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court in three sets of proceedings which ended in 2010 and 2014 respectively where that court dismissed the applicant’s appeals against three decisions of the Croatian Bar Association (CBA) whereby he had been temporarily suspended from the Bar. Specifically, by a judgment of 25   February 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the CBA’s Executive Board’s decision of 17 October 2009. By two judgments adopted on 11 December 2014 that court dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the two decisions of the CBA’s Executive Board of 14 December 2013. In each of the three cases the Supreme Court sat in a panel composed of the same three judges and two attorneys (members of the CBA), as provided in the Attorney’s Act ( Zakon o odvjetništvu ). In May   2017 the applicant learned that two judges who had sat in the Supreme Court’s panel which had dismissed his appeals had been receiving money from the CBA at the relevant time. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the Supreme Court, which decided the applicant’s appeals against the decisions of the Croatian Bar Association, impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?