CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juillet 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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 25 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22487/21 Bojan ZUSTOVIĆ and Branko ZUSTOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 21 April 2021 communicated on 4 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns non-enforcement of a judgment favourable for the applicants which was obtained by a municipality against a private individual. In particular, relevant municipality obtained a judgment against a private party in the civil proceedings concerning disturbance of possession ordering him to liberate the unclassified road he had occupied. The municipality then applied for enforcement of that judgment and the enforcement court issued a writ of execution. The applicants participated in both civil and the ensuing enforcement proceedings as interested third parties on the side of the municipality because the road in question enabled them to access their properties. However, the municipality eventually withdrew its application for enforcement whereupon the enforcement court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. The municipality did so because it had established that there was an alternative road leading to the applicants’ properties and that in those circumstances insisting on enforcement would impose excessive individual burden on the enforcement debtor. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about the municipality’s withdrawal of its application for enforcement and the enforcement’s court decision to discontinue the enforcement.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the municipality’s withdrawal of its application for enforcement and the resultant inability of the applicants to enforce a final domestic court’s judgment favourable to them?