CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 février 2025

.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 3 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 18363/24 Sanja MASLENJAK against Montenegro lodged on 13 June 2024 communicated on 11 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of the proceedings for the appointment of three Constitutional Court judges in 2023. The applicant applied for a position of a Constitutional Court judge, but was unsuccessful. She lodged a constitutional appeal and complained about the fairness of the proceedings. On 20 October 2023 the Constitutional Court rejected her constitutional appeal on non-exhaustion grounds. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the fairness of the appointment proceedings and a lack of an effective domestic remedy because the Constitutional Court rejected her appeal on non-exhaustion grounds when there was no other remedy that she could have used. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Juričić v. Croatia , no. 58222/09, §§   51-58, 26 July 2011; Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no. 24492/21, § 58, 20 June 2023; Lorenzo Bragado and Others v. Spain , nos. 53193/21 and 5 others, §   98, 22 June 2023; and Stylianidis v. Cyprus (dec.), no.   24269/18, 16 January 2024)? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Oktay Alkan , cited above, §§ 64-70)?   3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 6, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Did she have an “arguable claim” that there had been a violation of her rights under Article   13?