CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 2023

.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 27 November 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43575/22 Vanja KALAC against Croatia lodged on 6 September 2022 communicated on 7 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the costs order imposed on the applicant in civil proceedings where he had fully succeeded with his claim. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against private individuals claiming that he had been the co-owner of a plot of land which the respondents had allegedly intended to sell to a third party. Following an on-site inspection, the respondents acknowledged the applicant’s claim, and the court declared him co-owner of the land at issue and awarded him costs of proceedings. On appeal, the second instance court reversed the costs order, imposing on the applicant the obligation to reimburse the respondents’ costs of proceedings in the amount of some EUR 415 plus interest because they had acknowledged his claim without discussing the merits of the case. In accordance with section 157 of the Civil Procedure Act, the claimant shall reimburse the respondent’s costs of proceedings if the latter did not give cause to the proceedings and if he or she acknowledged the claim before engaging in a discussion on the merits of the case. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the second instance court’s decision ordering him to reimburse the costs of proceedings to the respondents was arbitrary and unreasoned because that court failed to give any reasons as to whether the respondents had given cause to the proceedings. He also complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that his property rights have been breached by the costs order. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the second instance decision well-reasoned (see   Tarvydas v.   Lithuania , no. 36098/19, §§ 47 and 52, 23 November 2021; Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland , no. 4907/18, §§ 165 and 172, 7 May 2021)?   2.     Has the allegedly excessive award of costs of proceedings to the respective defendants violated the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Čolić v. Croatia , no. 49083/18, §§   66-70, 18   November 2021)?