CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 22 December 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 15516/23 Anto VIDOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 1 April 2023 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the domestic courts to declare the applicant’s civil action for compensation for defamation inadmissible because he had failed to report his claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings opened against the defendant company. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of his right of access to a court. In particular, he emphasises that the interpretation of the applicable law was arbitrary as the domestic courts had failed to take into account that reporting the claim was not solely his responsibility but also that of the defendant company. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the domestic courts’ decision to declare inadmissible his civil action on the ground that he had failed to report his claim in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings (see   Ismeta Bačić v. Croatia , no. 43595/06, §§ 25-32, 19 June 2008; Majski v.   Croatia (no. 2) , no. 16924/08, §§ 66-72, 19 July 2011; and Lesjak v.   Croatia , no. 25904/06, §§ 35-42, 18 February 2010; and compare, for factual similarities, Merćep v. Croatia [Committee], no.   47880/20, §§ 23-30, 11   February 2025)?