CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 21 April 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50546/14 Marija VUKELIĆ and Ante VUKELIĆ against Croatia lodged on 10 July 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Ms Marija Vukelić and Mr Ante Vukelić, are Croatian nationals who were both born in 1959 and live in Kraljevec na Sutli. They are represented before the Court by Ms K. Starčević Pavelka, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. In 1987 the applicants brought a civil action against J.Č. in the Klanjec Municipal Court seeking that the existence of the late I.K.’s will be established. In response, J.Č. brought a civil action against the applicants in the same Municipal Court, seeking that I.K.’s will be declared null and void. After a judgment establishing the existence of the late I.K.’s will became final, judge I.S., acting as a single judge, ruled in favour of J.Č. and declared the will null and void on 21 February 2001. This judgment was upheld by the Zlatar County Court on 28 December 2005. In an appeal on points of law of 3 March 2006 the applicants complained, inter alia , that judge I.S. was related to J.Č., a fact of which the applicants learned only at that stage of the proceedings. On 23 July 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, finding that the degree of the relationship between judge I.S. and the claimant, J.Č., fell outside the statutory grounds for the exemption of judges. A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 17 December 2013. This decision was served on the applicants on 13 January 2014. COMPLAINT The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the lack of impartiality of the trial judge because he was a relative of their opponent in the civil proceedings at issue.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the fact that the trial judge was a relative of the applicants’ opponent in the proceedings amount to a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?