CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 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 7 March 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6524/18 Dominik NIZIĆ against Croatia lodged on 29 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant gave a statement on the record before the first-instance court whereby he withdrew his counsel’s authority to represent him in the civil proceedings in question. From that moment until the end of the proceedings the applicant represented himself. However, the second-instance judgment was erroneously served on his former counsel instead on the applicant personally. His subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible as being lodged out of time because the Constitutional Court took the day on which the second-instance judgment had been served on his former counsel as the starting date rather than the day on which the applicant had been informed of it. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the manner in which the Constitutional Court calculated the time-limit for lodging the constitutional complaint in the applicant’s case in compliance with his right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Čamovski v. Croatia , no. 38280/10, 23   October 2012; Šimecki v. Croatia , no. 15253/10, 30 April 2014, and Pavlović and Others v. Croatia , no. 13274/11, 2 April 2015)?