CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 novembre 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 12 December 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31832/20 Marin REBAC against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 26 June 2020 communicated on 23 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the Constitutional Court (which dealt with his allegations concerning the right to liberty, the right to respect for his private life and correspondence and the right not to be ill-treated) did not communicate and thus allow him an opportunity to comment on written statements filed by other participants in the proceedings (namely, the Orašje Municipal Court and the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office of the Posavina Canton). While the non-communicated observations of the Orašje Municipal Court did not contain anything new or relevant to the case, the Prosecutor’s Office submitted arguments on which the Constitutional Court explicitly relied in its decision of 20 May 2020. With a view to harmonising its procedure with the case-law of the Court in Strasbourg, in 2021 the Constitutional Court decided to start transmitting all observations to the appellants for comments. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing before the Constitutional Court, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Milatová and Others v.   the Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, §§ 59-66, ECHR 2005 ‑ V; BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic , no. 33908/04, §§ 137-46, 24 February 2011; and Baotić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 49560/20, §§ 3-9, 18 October 2022)?