CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 11058/24 Boris SESAR against Croatia lodged on 5 April 2024 communicated on 11 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms in judicial review (administrative dispute) proceedings in which the High Administrative Court failed to forward the defendant authority’s response to the applicant’s action for judicial review to the applicant. The applicant was a board member of a public company from September 2021 to March 2022. In July 2022, after several news publications concerning the applicant’s use of his private car for official purposes and receiving related allowance, the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest instituted proceedings against him. It eventually found that his actions were in breach of the relevant law and imposed a fine. The applicant brought an action for judicial review against that decision, which the High Administrative Court dismissed. In so deciding, it relied in part on the Commission’s response to the applicant’s action which had never been forwarded to him. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint alleging breaches of his right to a fair hearing and the principle of equality of arms, specifically his right to be informed of, and to comment on, all observations filed. However, the Constitutional Court dismissed his constitutional complaint finding that the procedural situation in question had not influenced the outcome of the case or the fairness of the proceedings. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that there was a breach of the principle of equality of arms which rendered the proceedings unfair. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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 principle of equality of arms respected in the judicial review (administrative dispute) proceedings before the High Administrative Court (see   Hrdalo v. Croatia , no. 23272/07, §§ 34-40, 27 September 2011, and Maravić Markeš v. Croatia , no. 70923/11, §§ 46-57, 9 January 2014)?