CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 March 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24811/16 Ljubica ORAŠANIN against Croatia lodged on 28 April 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to enforce a final domestic court’s judgment against a private individual. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1, that due to the delay and errors of the domestic courts in the enforcement proceedings instituted in 1994, the judgment rendered in her favour remained unenforced to date. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the applicant’s inability to enforce a final domestic court’s judgment against a private individual? In particular, have the domestic courts acted diligently and took sufficient steps to enforce the final judgment of 6 May 1994 rendered in the applicant’s favour (see Fuklev v. Ukraine , no. 71186/01, 7 June 2005; Cebotari and Others v. Moldova , nos. 37763/04 and 4 others, 27 January 2009; and Raguž v. Serbia , no.   8182/07, 7 April 2015)?