In particular: (a)     was the dismissal of the appeal on points of law by the Court of Cassation compatible with the Court’s case-law on “excessive formalism” (see, among many others, Zubac

    Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, as a result of the failure of the Supreme Court of Cassation to decide on all of his claims (see Zubac v.

’s right of access to court guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, considering the manner in which the Court of Cassation applied the admissibility requirements for lodging an action (see Zubac

. 3 and 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure and with the principle of the autonomy of the appeal on points of law compatible with the Court’s case-law on “excessive formalism” (see, among many others, Zubac

applicant’s favour (nos. 430/2017 and 431/2017, of 13 March 2017), has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac

  Upon his objection, proceedings were referred to the Zurzach District Court (Bezirksgericht).

  Der Gerichtshof kam daher einstimmig zu dem Schluss, dass die vorliegende Beschwerde als Missbrauch des Beschwerderechts zu betrachten war und wies sie als unzulässig zurück.

    Having regard to the foregoing, the Court notes that the present case is similar to the case of Zubac v.

    Les principes applicables à l’examen des restrictions d’accès à un degré supérieur de juridiction ont été résumés par la Cour dans l’affaire Zubac c.

    The relevant general principles applicable to the examination of restrictions on access to superior courts, including the foreseeability criterion, were summarised by the Court in Zubac v

15   février 2011 et 17321 du 17   août   2011), l’interprétation faite par la Cour de cassation du type de recours à exercer était-elle suffisamment claire et prévisible en l’espèce ( Zubac

    Did the applicant company have access to a court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac v.

appellate court’s interpretation of the domestic procedural rules, which prevented the applicant’s action being examined on the merits, secured her a practical and effective right of access to a court (see Zubac

L’ingérence poursuivait-elle un but légitime et existait-il un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé ( Zubac c.

the above-mentioned individual application proceedings, including, in particular, those concerning the house search and the seizures, in line with Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac

been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to Court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the dismissal of his claim for being lodged out of time (see for instance Zubac

Serbia , no. 32299/08, § 50, 2 October 2012; and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-124, 5 April 2018)?       APPENDIX List of applicants:   No.

infringed by the Supreme Administrative Court when it dismissed his case on the ground that he had no standing to challenge the EIA non-requirement decision before the administrative courts   ( see Zubac

Portugal , n os 55997/14 et 3 autres, §§ 108-117, 31 mars 2020, Zubac c.   Croatie [GC], n o 40160/12, §§ 76-99, 5 avril 2018)   ?   1.1.

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