CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 février 2022

.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 } Published on 14 March 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45909/20 Mato TOPALOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 8 October 2020 communicated on 21 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the Supreme Court to declare inadmissible the applicant’s civil action for compensation for injuries sustained in a work-related accident, because he had failed to report his claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings opened against the defendant company. The applicant alleges that declaring his civil action inadmissible was disproportionate because it was not only his duty to report the claim but also that of the defendant company. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the domestic courts’ decision to declare inadmissible his civil action because he failed to report his claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings (see Ismeta Bačić v. Croatia , no. 43595/06, 19 June 2008)? In particular:   (a)     Having regard to the relevant legislation and the case-law of the domestic courts at the time, was it foreseeable for the applicant that he had to report his claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Majski v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 16924/08, 19 July 2011)?   (b)     Did the domestic courts’ decision to declare the applicant’s civil action inadmissible amount to excessive formalism (see, mutatis mutandis , Lesjak v. Croatia , no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010)?