CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 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 19 September 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49974/20 Ljubica MARIĆ against Serbia lodged on 4 November 2020 communicated on 29 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the Convention requirement for the applicant’s civil claim to be determined by an “impartial tribunal” as well as a “tribunal established by law”. Judge L.Đ., who sat on the Constitutional Court’s panel of eight judges which decided on the applicant’s constitutional appeal on 13 February 2020 (the decision was served on the applicant on 14   May 2020), had previously sat on the Supreme Court’s panel of three judges which had decided on the applicant’s appeal on point of law in the same civil case concerning a division of marital property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the proceedings before the Constitutional Court violate the applicant’s right to be heard by a tribunal established by law guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Šorgić v. Serbia , no.   34973/06, §§ 61-63, 3 November 2011; Momčilović v. Serbia , no.   23103/07, §§ 29-30, 2 April 2013; and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v.   Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 223, 1 December 2020)? In particular, was there a reason for judge L.Đ.’s withdrawal or exemption from these proceedings in view of her involvement in determining the merits of the applicant’s claim before the Supreme Court pursuant to section 67 of the 2011 Civil Procedure Act? Did judge L.Đ. notify the President of the Constitutional Court of the reason for her withdrawal or exemption pursuant to section 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court ( Poslovnik o radu Ustavnog suda )? Did the Constitutional Court decide about her withdrawal or exemption pursuant to section 42 of the Rules of Procedure and section 8 of the 2007 Constitutional Court Act ( Zakon o Ustavnom sudu )? If so, the Government are requested to submit, in support of their response, documentary evidence in this respect.   2.     Did the proceedings before the Constitutional Court violate the applicant’s right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Warsicka v. Poland , no.   2065/03, § 40, 16 January 2007; Šorgić v. Serbia , cited above, §§ 66-69; Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78 and 89, ECHR 2015; and Scerri v. Malta , no. 36318/18, §§ 69-74 and 76-78, 7 July 2020)?   3. If so, has there also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?