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. 646/17 Denis JURIČIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 December 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings between a real-estate agency and the applicant regarding a preliminary real-estate purchase agreement ( predugovor o kupoprodaji nekretnine ). The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the domestic courts’ decisions ordering him to give the agency possession over the real-estate were arbitrary, contrary to the Supreme Court’s case-law on the matter (see, for example, judgments of the Supreme Court nos. Rev-2791/00-2 of 9 April 2003 and Rev 560/07-4 of 27 May 2008), and contrary to the domestic courts’ decisions rendered in cases concerning identical factual and legal circumstances (see, for example, the final judgments of the Split Municipal Court nos. P2-9259/09 of 4 May 2012; P1-9244/09 of 9 September 2013; and P1-9245/09 of 18   June 2014). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts’ decisions rendered in his case arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, having regard to the Supreme Court’s case-law on the matter (see, for example, judgments of the Supreme Court nos. Rev-2791/00-2 of 9 April 2003 and Rev 560/07-4 of 27 May 2008) and the judgments of the Split Municipal Court rendered in cases concerning identical factual and legal circumstances (see, for example, judgments of the Split Municipal Court nos. P2-9259/09 of 4 May 2012; P1-9244/09 of 9   September 2013; and P1-9245/09 of 18 June 2014)?   2.     Were the domestic courts’ decisions ordering the applicant to give the agency possession over the real-estate at issue in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention?