CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 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 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21784/16 Dejan STEFANOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 7 April 2016 communicated on 20 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns the applicant’s inability to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in which the final civil court judgment which had been rendered in his favour was quashed and the case remitted to the second-instance court for re-examination. Ultimately, following the said re-examination, the applicant’s civil claim, involving non-pecuniary damages, was dismissed by the national courts. The applicant now complains under Article 6 of the Convention that, although he had had a strong interest in the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, he did not have the opportunity to participate in them. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected with regard to the fact the applicant was not notified of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court nor of its decision adopted subsequently (see Gaspari v.   Slovenia , no.   21055/03, § 53, 21 July 2009; Milatová and Others v.   the   Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, § 65, 21 June 2005; and H.A.L.   v.   Finland , no. 38267/97, § 45, 27 January 2004)?