CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 26 July 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25906/20 Neđeljko BLAGOJEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 June 2020 communicated on 6 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s son was killed in 1995 by an individual at a gas station in Nova Gradiška. The murderer stated that he had been looking for a person of Serbian origin to kill for several days at that location and that he had ultimately chosen the victim because of some statements he had heard him make. In 1998 the murderer was pardoned by the President. In subsequent civil proceedings for damages against the State, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claim concluding that his son’s murder did not amount to a politically motivated terrorist act, as required under the domestic law for State liability for damages. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings had been unfair and that the conclusions of the domestic courts had been arbitrary. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the judgments of the domestic courts in his case arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Khamidov   v.   Russia , no.   72118/01 , § 170, 15 November 2007; Anđelković   v. Serbia , no.   1401/08 , §   24, 9 April 2013; and Bochan v. Ukraine   (no.   2) [GC], no.   22251/08 , §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015)? The parties are invited to submit relevant jurisprudence of the domestic courts in support of their arguments.