CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 7 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8402/17 Karlo MALIĆ against Croatia lodged on 20 January 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings which the applicant instituted against a municipality seeking to be recognised as the owner of a plot of land. His claim was dismissed by the domestic courts as unfounded. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the court adjudicating his case was not impartial in that the husband of a County Court judge, who acted as a judge rapporteur and sat in the three-judge panel deciding the case at issue, was employed at the defendant municipality while his case was pending before the County Court. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the fact that the husband of a County Court judge, who acted as a judge rapporteur and sat in the three-judge panel adjudicating the case in the proceedings at issue, was employed at the defendant municipality amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nikolov v.   the   former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 41195/02, 20 December 2007, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, ECHR 2009 and Ramljak v.   Croatia , no. 5856/13, 27 June 2017)?