CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.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 } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50372/20 Alen IVKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 30 October 2020 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an interim measure whereby the Constitutional Court on 30 April 2020 – apparently without the applicant’s knowledge – postponed the enforcement of a final judgment ordering an allegedly State ‑ controlled company to pay him a sum of money, until it decided on the company’s constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court has not yet decided on that constitutional complaint. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the delayed enforcement of the judgment adopted in the applicant’s favour in the present case contrary to Article 6   §   1 of the Convention and/or Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (see EVT Company v.   Serbia , no. 3102/05, 21 June 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009; and Gulmammadova v. Azerbaijan , no. 38798/07, 22 April 2010)?   2.     Was the applicant notified of, and given a chance to comment on, the request for postponement of enforcement lodged by the opposing party? If not, has there been a breach of the principle of equality of arms, guaranteed by Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see Gaspari v. Slovenia , no. 21055/03, 21   July 2009)?