CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2017

.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 }   Communicated on 23 May 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5670/16 Alan PRAUNSPERGER against Croatia lodged on 19 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interim measure whereby the Constitutional Court – without the applicant’s knowledge – postponed the enforcement of a judgment in his favour’s until it decided on the constitutional complaint lodged by the owner of immovable property subject to enforcement. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour in the present case contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto?   2.     Was the applicant notified of, and given a chance to comment on the constitutional complaint and the request for an interim measure lodged by the alleged owner of the property subject to enforcement? If not, was the principle of equality of arms respected as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?