CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 29 May 2020 Published on 15 June 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 44076/18 Evica JURKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 11 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2008 a public notary issued a writ of execution ordering the applicant to pay unpaid TV subscription fees. The said decision was served on the applicant seven years later. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the writ of execution, and in particular the delay of its service, in civil proceedings. She was ultimately ordered to pay the amount owed and the accrued interest starting from 2008, with the courts providing no explanation for the delayed service. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, what was the reason for the delayed service of the writ of execution in her case? Did the courts provide sufficient reasons for such a delay by way of a reasoned judgement? 2.     Has the decision to order the applicant to pay interest since 2008 violated her property rights in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?