CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 6 November 2017     FIRST SECTION Application no. 4746/16 Nikola BRNABIĆ against Croatia lodged on 14 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was tried for seven criminal offences. The domestic courts finally convicted him for four criminal offences and dismissed the charges for the remaining three, ruling that the costs of the proceedings in that part, including the costs of the applicant’s defence lawyer, were to be covered from the State budget. Subsequently, when the applicant sought compensation of costs of his defence lawyer, the domestic courts dismissed his request on the grounds that it was not possible to calculate the costs incurred only in respect of the three criminal offences for which the charges against him were dismissed. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the decision of the domestic courts refusing to compensate him the costs of his defence lawyer, even though in the criminal proceedings against him those costs were ruled to be covered from the State budget. The applicant’s complaint is to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant’s claim for compensation of costs of his defence lawyer amount to possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.1? If so, did the domestic authorities’ decisions dismissing the applicant’s claim amount to an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions? If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?