CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 10 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20538/24 Jasmina BUHIN against Croatia lodged on 10 July 2024 communicated on 17 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns access to the Constitutional Court following the new rules on the functioning of the remedy of appeal on points of law introduced by the 2022 Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act which entered into force in July 2022, and the resultant change in the practice of the Constitutional Court. The Amendments expanded the grounds for appeals on points of law to include breaches of human rights, in addition to the existing grounds aimed at ensuring the uniform application of the law. As a result, in March 2023 the Constitutional Court changed its practice and started requiring complainants to first lodge a petition for leave to appeal on points of law based on human rights breaches before lodging constitutional complaints against second-instance judgments. In the present case, on 1 December 2022 the applicant simultaneously lodged a petition for leave to appeal on points of law and a constitutional complaint against a second-instance judgment. The grounds for her petition did not involve alleged breaches of human rights. Instead, she argued that the decision in her case depended on resolving a point of procedural law important for ensuring the uniform application of the law. In a letter of 7 December 2022, the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that it would wait for the Supreme Court’s decision on her petition for leave to appeal on points of law before examining her constitutional complaint. The letter indicated that if the Supreme Court were to declare the petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court would examine the merits of her constitutional complaint against the second-instance judgment. The letter also stated that in such a situation the applicant had the possibility to extend her constitutional complaint to also challenge the Supreme Court’s decision declaring her petition inadmissible. However, after the Supreme Court on 25 April 2023 declared the applicant’s petition for leave to appeal on points of law inadmissible, the Constitutional Court, in a decision of 29 February 2024, applied its new case ‑ law and declared her constitutional complaint against the second ‑ instance judgment inadmissible for failure to exhaust other available remedies. It held that her petition was not based on human rights breaches. The court also stated that it could not examine the Supreme Court’s decision itself because the applicant had not lodged a separate constitutional complaint against that decision. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that her right of access to a court was breached in that the Constitutional Court, by applying its new case law, declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible despite having previously informed her that it would examine the complaint on the merits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the content of the letter of 7   December 2022, was the Constitutional Court’s decision to declare the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the second-instance judgment inadmissible in breach of her right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia   ([GC], no.   40160/12, §§   76-86, 5   April 2018)?   In particular, was that decision foreseeable for the applicant (ibid., § 87; Arrozpide Sarasola and Others v. Spain , nos.   65101/16 and 2 others, §   106, 23   October 2018; and   Hanževački v. Croatia , no.   49439/21, §§   35 ‑ 41, 5   September 2023)?