CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 September 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 72996/16 Mirjana MIRENIĆ-HUZJAK and Tatjana JERKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 28 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings for declaration of ownership in which the applicants’ action was eventually declared inadmissible as being brought outside of the statutory time-limit. The applicants’ subsequent extraordinary appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court because they had not given reasons as to why the point of law underlying the ground of appeal was important for the uniform application of the law. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants required to lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law in order to comply with their obligation under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to exhaust domestic remedies? In particular: (a)     Does the admissibility of that remedy ultimately depend on the Supreme Court’s discretion on whether the point of law raised in the appeal is important for the uniform application of the law? (b)     If so, could that remedy be considered effective?   2.     Was the decision of the second-instance court to declare the applicants’ action inadmissible and/or the Supreme Court’s decision to declare inadmissible their appeal on points of law, in breach of the applicants’ right of access to court, guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Trevisanato v. Italy , no. 32610/07, 15 September 2016)?   APPENDIX     1.     Mirjana MIRENIĆ-HUZJAK was born in 1959 and lives in Velika Gorica;   2.     Tatjana JERKOVIĆ was born in 1972 and lives in Zagreb.