CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 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 9 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16087/18 Vera JELČIĆ STEPINAC against Croatia lodged on 3 April 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Following a civil dispute with an insurance company (C.O.), by a judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court of 12 December 2001 the applicant was awarded compensation in instalments for the special assistance related to her disability as a result of a car accident. The operative part of the judgment indicated that the instalments were to be paid pro futuro . In the statement of reasons, it was explained that this meant until the end of the applicant’s life, as provided for by the relevant Civil Obligations Act. The insurance company appealed but the Zagreb County Court upheld this judgment on 12 November 2002. However, when at a later stage due to the change in her personal circumstances the applicant sought to increase the compensation, the insurance company set a counter-claim asking that the payment of instalments be discontented. It argued that the applicant had exhausted her right of compensation under the insurance contract. On 12   June 2015 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (successor of the Zagreb Municipal Court) ruled in favour of the insurance company and discontinued the applicant’s right to future instalments. The applicant appealed against this judgment, arguing that it run counter to the principle of res judicata and legal certainty. On 17 November 2015 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the judgment of the lower court was well reasoned and that the applicant erroneously thought that the operative part of the judgment of 12 December 2001 meant that she would be receiving instalments for life, which should not, in the Zagreb County Court’s view, be the case. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, of a breach of the principle of res judicata and legal certainty. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the principle of rule of law, as provided for under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Brletić v.   Croatia , no. 42009/10, §§ 37-39, 16 January 2014, and Solomun v.   Croatia , no. 679/11, § 62, 2 April 2015), respected considering that the final judgment in the applicant’s favour had been set aside by the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court’s judgment of 12 June 2015?