CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 12 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23795/19 Fadila PEŠTELIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern three different sets of civil proceedings. In each of them, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible in respect of one part of the case and reversed the second-instance judgment, ruling against the applicant, regarding the remainder of the case. The Constitutional Court overlooked the fact that the third-instance judgments had partly dealt with the merits of the cases and held that the time-limit for lodging a constitutional appeal had thus started running on the date of service of the second-instance judgments. As a result, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeals as out of time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the request for review under Rule 68 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicants’ complaint concerning access to the Constitutional Court? The Government are requested to provide examples, if any, of cases in which that remedy has been used to rectify mistakes made by the Constitutional Court in declaring an appeal inadmissible.   2.     Did the applicants have access to the Constitutional Court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 and/or Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Đokić v. Serbia , no. 1005/08, §§ 35-38, 20 December 2011)?   3.     Were the decisions rendered in the civil proceedings arbitrary and for that reason contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 60-65, ECHR 2015)? If so, has there also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 23795/19 Peštelić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 24/04/2019 Fadila PEŠTELIĆ 29/09/1954 Banovići Ćamil SOFTIĆ 2 23809/19 Modrić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 24/04/2019 Azra MODRIĆ 04/03/1953 Banovići Ćamil SOFTIĆ 3 44353/19 Božić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 05/08/2019 Miodrag BOŽIĆ 29/11/1961 Banja Luka Vladimir KOVAČEVIĆ