On 12 February 1992 the applicants' house in Hrgovljani, Croatia was destroyed by a mine laid by an unknown perpetrator.

    QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Administrative Court upheld the administrative authorities’ decisions, finding that the first applicant’s registered domicile had been in Croatia, that he had been registered as a tax payer in Croatia

    The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Crikvenica, Croatia. 5.     On 6 July 1992 his weekend house in Nin, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators. 6.

and Dubravko ŠOŠO against Croatia lodged on 23 May 2014 and 18 August 2014 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant in the first case, Mr Željko Bosak, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1973

He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ..

It also considered, due to the fact that the applicant was not present in Croatia, that the proceedings could not be reopened as there was no possibility of holding a trial in his presence.

CROATIA (Application no. 68437/13)     JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Domestic court’s reliance on competent administrative authority’s in-house experts’ reports, without

Croatia (dec.), no. 41489/09, 29 March 2011). COMPLAINTS 9.

The applicant consequently withdrew his court action, claiming costs and expenses he had incurred in the proceedings thus far.

Croatia , no. 72152/13, §§ 119-123, 6   September 2016). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants have an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints?

  Croatia , no. 20100/06, 25 February 2010; Horvatić v.   Croatia , no.   36044/09, 17 October 2013 and; Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no.   22062/07, 10   April 2014)?

Croatia (application no. 71549/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Nevenka Cvijetić, is a Croatian national, born in 1950 and living in Split, Croatia.

. 6070/16 Atila GOKSU against Serbia lodged on 20 January 2016 communicated on 11 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a Belgian national, was crossing a border between Serbia and Croatia

and the foreign relations of the Republic of Croatia) still prevailed ...

Croatia, no. 26636/16 The applicant served two sentences of imprisonment.

The Court has so far found a violation of applicants’ right to respect for their home under Article 8 of the Convention in a number of cases against Croatia on the grounds that the national courts, when

Article 468 § 2, in so far as relevant for the purposes of the present case, was amended to include a serious violation of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Croatian Constitution and the Convention

    On 15 May 1995 the Republic of Croatia filed its reply denying the plaintiff's claim. It requested the court to stay the proceedings until the end of war in Croatia.

Croatia , no. 36044/09, § 70, 17   October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia , no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014). 53.