CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 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 }   Published on 31 May 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 17578/20 Dalibor MAGDIĆ against Croatia lodged on 15 April 2020 communicated on 11 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the measures adopted by the Croatian authorities in the context of prevention of the spreading of the Covid-19 virus. In particular, the relevant authority issued decisions: -     prohibiting to leave the place of domicile and residence save in exceptional circumstance and with its authorisation; -     prohibiting public gatherings comprising more than 5 people; -     suspending religious gatherings. The applicant alleges that the measures in question breached his right to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of religion, contrary to Article   9 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4 ?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy at his disposal for his complaints under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention and Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4? If so, did he exhaust those remedies in order to comply with requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?