CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2018

.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 January 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 34499/16 Mladen MALI against Croatia lodged on 10 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The complaint concerns the unfairness of the civil proceedings, in particular failure of the second-instance court to address the applicant’s arguments as regards the admissibility of the opposing party’s appeal. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Zagreb County Court in its judgment of 28 April 2015 address the applicant’s argument that the appeal was inadmissible for being lodged out of time?   2.     If not, was the Zagreb County Court’s judgment sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has the principle of legal certainty been respected?