CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 20 September 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 316/19 Majda MOHORIČ against Slovenia lodged on 14 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the inadmissibility of X’s appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court rejected for falling below the ratione valoris threshold, after it had previously, in the same case, rejected his leave to appeal on points of law for exceeding that same threshold. The applicant, who is X’s heir (X died while the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were pending), complains that the Supreme Court’s decision not to consider any of the remedies on the merits was arbitrary and thus in violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (see, for example, Ressegatti v.   Switzerland , no. 17671/02, §§ 16-26, 13 July 2006, and Micallef v.   Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 46-50, ECHR 2009)?   2.     In view of the conflicting Supreme Court’s decisions, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the relevant legal provisions concerning the ratione valoris threshold sufficiently clear and were they applied by the Supreme Court in a foreseeable manner (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 80-99, 5 April 2018)?