CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 61680/19 Ankica HRABAR against Croatia lodged on 19 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings the applicant instituted against two public road companies seeking compensation for the damage sustained in a road traffic accident caused by uncleaned muddy road. After the first- and the second-instance courts ruled in the applicant’s favour and awarded her compensation, the Supreme Court, following the public companies’ appeal on points of law, reversed the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed the applicant’s civil action only because it found that she had wrongly sued those two companies and not the local authorities. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing the applicant’s civil action for compensation on the ground that she had directed it against two public road companies rather than against the Trogir Township, in breach of her right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kostadin Mihaylov v. Bulgaria , no. 17868/07, 27 March 2008, and Spasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 45150/05, 10   June 2010), and/or her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Tarnawczyk v. Poland , no.   27480/02, 7 December 2010; Sierpiński v. Poland , no. 38016/07, 3   November 2009, and Plechanow v. Poland , no. 22279/04, 7 July 2009)?