CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 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 19 September 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 60123/16 Slaven ČOLAK against Croatia lodged on 12 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a court decision ordering the applicant to bear the costs of the adjournment of two hearings in the civil proceedings he instituted against a State-run bank in the amount of about 35,000 euros. The applicant had no remedy in respect of that decision which is immediately enforceable. The application is to be communicated under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in the form of the decision by the domestic authorities ordering him to pay the costs of the adjournment of two hearing in accordance with the conditions provided for by law as required by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was that interference foreseeable? If the interference was lawful, was it necessary to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?