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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 March 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 47880/20 Ivan MERĆEP against Croatia lodged on 19 October 2020 communicated on 21 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the domestic courts to declare the applicant’s civil action for defamation inadmissible because he had failed to report his compensation claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings opened against the defendant company. The applicant alleges that the domestic law was unforeseeable at the time and that the domestic courts had divergent case-law regarding legal consequences of the failure to report a claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings. He further submits that the defendant company also failed to report his claim even though it was under statutory duty to do so, indicating that the company contested the claim. Thus, even if he had reported his claim in the pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings, the company would have contested the well-foundedness of his claim and it would have had to be examined in the civil proceedings in question. Declaring his civil action inadmissible thus amounted to excessive formalism.     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)?