CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Communicated on 27 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57743/19 Gordana Danielle HYETT PERGER CVITANOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 30 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s inability to participate effectively in the civil proceedings between private parties instituted against her for the payment of a sum of money. The proceedings ended in her disfavour. In those proceedings the applicant, who lives in Australia, was appointed and represented by guardian ad litem because the service through diplomatic channels had been unsuccessful as her address was allegedly unknown. After she had learned about the final judgment, she filed a petition for reopening on the ground of non-participation in the proceedings, arguing that she had always been living at the address where the service had been attempted. She also complained about the poor quality of representation provided by the guardian ad litem and the domestic court’s failure to replace him, which resulted in granting the opposing party’s claim. The domestic courts dismissed her petition finding that the guardian ad litem had been appointed in accordance with domestic law and that the applicant had thus been duly represented throughout the proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was a petition for reopening of proceedings that the applicant resorted to an effective remedy to be exhausted in the present case (see Kiiskinen and Kovalainen v. Finland   (dec.), no.   26323/95 , 1 June 1999; Sapeyan v.   Armenia , no. 35738/03, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Melis v. Greece , no.   30604/07, § 18, 22 July 2010)?   2.     If so, was the applicant able to participate effectively in the proceedings complained of, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, 4 March 2014; and Aždajić v. Slovenia , no. 71872/12, 8 October 2015)?