CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35776/22 Danijela POLDRUGAČ against Croatia lodged on 14 July 2022 communicated on 22 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the domestic courts to declare inadmissible the applicant’s civil action to have certain material defects of her flat remedied because she had failed to report her claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings opened against the defendant company. The applicant alleges that the domestic courts’ decision lacked a sufficiently clear legal basis and that their interpretation of the applicable law was disproportionally burdensome for her, as it was not only her duty, but also the duty of the defendant to report the claim. 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 her civil action because she had failed to report her claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings (see Ismeta Bačić v. Croatia , no. 43595/06, §§ 25-32, 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 she had to report her claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Majski v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 16924/08, §§ 66-72, 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, §§ 35-42, 18 February 2010)?