Supreme Administrative Court of the procedural rules governing time limits for submission of an appeal in administrative proceedings based on an excessively formalistic approach (see, among others, Zubac

In this respect the case is similar to the case of Zubac v. Croatia [GC] (no. 40160/12, 5 April 2018).

  Die Beschwerdeführer haben die Verfassungsmäßigkeit der nach der Wiedervereinigung erlassenen Gesetze in der Hoffnung bestritten, ihre Güter zurück zu erhalten oder eine dem Verkehrswert angeglichene

    The Court has already reviewed the system of determining the value of the subject-matter in dispute in civil proceedings, albeit in a slightly different context (see Zubac v.

Did the Supreme Administrative Court’s finding amount to “excessive formalism” (see, for instance, Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 80-82, 87-89 and 96-99, 5 April 2018, and Tsiolis v.

  Regarding the lack of a decision of the Supreme Court concerning the sanction applied to the applicant (paragraphs 9 to 10 above), the Court refers to the general principles summarised in Zubac

République de Moldova , n o 22735/07, § 24, 22 juillet 2014, et Zubac c. Croatie [GC], n o   40160/12, §§ 76-82 et 96-99, 5 avril 2018)   ?

(see Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-81, 5 April 2018)?   3.

If so, was the restriction justified under the said provision (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 97-98, 5 April 2018, Kutić v.

been deprived of his right of   access   to a court under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention due to the dismissal of his constitutional appeal for non-exhaustion of legal remedies (see Zubac

En particulier, cette restriction d’accès à la Cour de cassation était-elle empreinte d’un formalisme excessif   (voir, pour un rappel des principes pertinents, Zubac c.

Cassation to examine the applicants’ appeals on points of law in breach of their right of access to a court guaranteed under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for the relevant principles, Zubac

foregoing, did the applicant have access to a court for the purposes of the determination of a civil right to such compensation, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see generally Zubac

In particular, was the application of this principle compatible with the Court’s case-law on “excessive formalism” (see, among many others, Zubac v.

challenge the decisions of the SJC following the remittals, did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with that Article (see Zubac

  55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 176-86, 6   November 2018, and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018)?

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

right of access to a court, did that restriction pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Zubac

#xa0;   Was the refusal of the Court of Cassation to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law in breach of his right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zubac

outre, elles ne se concilient avec l'article 6, § 1, que si elles poursuivent un but légitime et s'il existe un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (CEDH Zubac