CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 May 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16624/24 Lidija KOMLEN NIKOLIĆ against Serbia lodged on 30 May 2024 communicated on 25 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of the procedure for the applicant’s appointment as a public prosecutor and raises issues under Article   6 of the Convention. Following a public call for applications, the applicant applied for the position of Deputy Public Prosecutor on 18   November 2022. On 29   August 2023 the High Prosecutorial Council (HPC) appointed another candidate, and the applicant was not selected. Her appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed on 24   January 2024, and she was served with the decision on 30   January 2024. Relying on Article   6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges a violation of her right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. In addition, she contends that the decision in her case was arbitrary and lacked reasoning.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case, including proceedings before the HPC (see, for general principles, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no.   63235/00, §   62, ECHR 2007-II; see also Alonso Saura v. Spain , no.   18326/19, §§   24-26 and 34-40, 8 June 2023, and Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no.   24492/21, §§   39-48 and 64-69, 20 June 2023)? If yes, did the applicant have access to court, as guaranteed by Article   6   §   1? If yes, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (i)     in view of the applicant’s allegation that the HPC did not provide reasons in its decision of 29   August   2023, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected (see Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11   July   2017)? (ii)     was the decision of the HPC arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, mutatis mutandis , Anđelković v.   Serbia , no.   1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013)? (iii)     in the light of the applicant’s allegation that the HPC adopted its decision of 29   August   2023 without holding a discussion, has there been a public hearing in the present case (see Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, §   47, ECHR 2002-V)? (iv)     in view of the applicant’s allegations that, during a session of the HPC, its President publicly made negative remarks about the applicant in the appointment process, was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case independent and impartial?