CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s993379DF { width:13.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s3C4B9ACB { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s29C8AD35 { width:12.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEAFE4EBD { width:17.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBEF24FD1 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A3BA02 { width:23.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s699CAA51 { width:13.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sED72F51C { width:16.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA3CA3A3 { width:12.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78E29942 { width:17.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA35C7 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s52751AF7 { width:23.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 16 October 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37333/17 Miroslav MARIĆ and Marijana MARIĆ against Croatia lodged on 17 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns Article 2 of the Convention – lack of an effective investigation into the killing of the applicants’ close relative and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention – access to court owing to excessive costs of proceedings (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, §§ 119-123, 6   September 2016). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants have an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints? If so, have they exhausted available domestic remedies?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the civil proceedings complained of, on account of the fact that the domestic courts ordered them to reimburse the State for the costs of those proceedings (see Cindrić and   Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016) so that the following criteria were satisfied: (a)     that the State was represented by the State Attorney’s Office and the costs of the State’s representation were calculated in an amount equal to a lawyer’s fee; (b)     that the applicants’ claim before the national courts was not devoid of any substance or manifestly unreasonable; (c)     in the light of the applicants’ individual financial situation, that the order to bear the costs at issue was a significant financial burden on them?   APPENDIX N o . First name LAST NAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Miroslav MARIĆ 1976 Croatian Rovinj S. Baotić   Marijana MARIĆ 1971 Croatian Rovinj S. Baotić