CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 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 24 October 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 15118/22 Zoran JANKOVIĆ against Slovenia lodged on 21 March 2022 communicated on 4 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns conclusions by a specialised Anti-Corruption Commission (hereinafter: “the Commission”) concerning the applicant, who is a well-known politician and has served as mayor of Ljubljana since 2006. In 2011, in the framework of anti-corruption legislation, presidents of all parliamentary parties in Slovenia were subject to control of their assets by the Commission. The Commission published its conclusions ( zaključne ugotovitve ) in 2012, but they were ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court in respect of the applicant because he had not been given a chance to submit his comments thereon beforehand. On 26 November 2015 the Commission issued fresh conclusions as regards the applicant, establishing that in the period between 2006 and 2012, the applicant had breached the law by not reporting his property (or changes thereto) regarding his real estate, shares and cash. It also found that certain business transactions were burdened with a high risk of corruption and conflict of interest as they had been initiated by a company that had at the material time done business with the Ljubljana Municipality, and that the applicant had received 208,000 euros on his bank account as a result of those transactions. On 5 January 2018 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Commission’s conclusions finding that there had been no breach of the applicant’s rights in the proceedings before the Commission. The applicant’s further appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 3   July 2019. The Constitutional Court refused to deal with the matter. The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the Administrative Court’s review of the Commission’s conclusions had been limited in scope and that he therefore had no access to court in the matter. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?   If so, did the applicant have access to a court, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in view of the allegedly limited scope of judicial review of the Commission’s decision (cf. Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, 6 November 2018; Capital Bank AD v.   Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts))?   The Government are invited to submit translations into one of the Court’s official languages, English or French, of the following documents: - judgment of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia no.   I   U   1854/2015-25 of 5 January 2018; and - judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia no.   X   Ips   28/2018 of 3 July 2019.