CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 March 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14782/18 Milan HUDOROVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 22 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings for damages instituted by the applicant against three defendants, namely the national roads company, a hunting association and an insurance company. The first-instance court dismissed his civil action in respect of all three defendants and ordered the applicant to pay them the costs of proceedings. However, following the applicant’s appeal the second-instance court: (1)     reversed the first-instance judgment in so far as it concerned the hunting association and the insurance company and ordered them to pay the applicant the damages sought, and (2)     quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the first ‑ instance court (a)     to the extent that the judgment concerned the national roads company, and (b)     in part concerning the costs of proceedings. In the fresh proceedings the applicant withdrew his action against the national roads company and requested reimbursement of the costs of proceedings. The domestic courts dismissed his claim for reimbursement of the costs against the national roads company because he had withdrawn his action. However, they also refused to order the remaining two defendants to pay him the costs. The courts held that the proceedings against those two defendants had ended by the second-instance judgment and that they had no longer been parties to the proceedings after the case had been remitted. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the domestic courts’ refusal to decide the substance of the applicant’s claim against the hunting association and the insurance company to pay him the costs of the proceedings (see, for example, Pavlović and Others v. Croatia , no.   13274/11, 2 April 2015, and Biondić v. Croatia , no. 38355/05, 8   November 2007)?