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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5655/22 Lucia ZACCHIGNA against Croatia lodged on 23 January 2022 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings instituted by the State against the applicant with a view to being declared the owner of a certain plot of land. The first-instance court ruled in favour of the applicant and dismissed the State’s civil action. However, on appeal, the second-instance court reversed the first-instance judgment and ruled for the State. In so deciding it relied on the Associated Labour Act – legislation not relied on or discussed by the parties – to conclude that the State had acquired the land in question by usucapion (adverse possession). The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint. Three judges dissented arguing that, by basing its   judgment on legislation on which the parties had not relied, the second-instance court had taken the applicant by surprise and prevented her from discussing the facts on which the application of that legislation depended. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of an adversarial hearing respected when the second-instance court based its judgment of 21 January 2016 on the Associated Labour Act, legislation not relied on or discussed by the parties (see Clinique des Acacias and Others v. France , nos. 65399/01 and 3 others, 13 October 2005; Čepek v. the Czech Republic , no. 9815/10, 5   September 2013; and Alexe v. Romania , no. 66522/09, 3 May 2016).