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. 62744/19 Rikard PAVLOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 28 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic authorities in pre ‑ bankruptcy settlement proceedings ( postupak predstečajne nagodbe ) to examine the applicant’s claim for payment of advocate’s fees. Those authorities so decided because the applicant did not submit invoices for the services rendered, even though he submitted other evidence to prove the existence of his claim. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the decision of the domestic authorities in pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings to declare inadmissible the applicant’s claim for payment of advocate’s fees in breach of his right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Adikanko and Basov-Grinev v. Russia , nos. 2872/09 and 20454/12, 13 March 2018; Lesjak v. Croatia , no.   25904/06, 18 February 2010, and Ismeta Bačić v. Croatia , no. 43595/06, 19 June 2008)? In particular, was that decision – which was based on the applicant’s failure to submit invoices for his legal services – excessively formalistic given that he submitted other evidence to prove the existence of his claim?