CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 décembre 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 18679/24 Luka ANĐELKOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 25 June 2024 communicated on 20 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a candidate for the post of a judge at the Niš Court of First Instance. In September 2023 the High Judicial Council (“HJC”) adopted four decisions and selected four out of sixty-six candidates. The applicant, who had not been selected, appealed to the Constitutional Court, complaining about the outcome of the appointment procedure and the alleged lack of reasoning in the selection decisions. On 27 February 2024, the Constitutional Court, without holding a hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded (that decision was served on 11 March 2024). The court held that the selection procedure had followed the law and that the contested decisions gave adequate and specific reasons for the choices made. The Constitutional Court’s decision was based in part on a submission made by the HJC. The applicant had not been informed of that submission and had not been given an opportunity to comment on it. The applicant complains that his inability to comment on observations filed by HJC violated his right to adversarial proceedings guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. Relying on the same provision, he further complains that the Constitutional Court decided his claim without holding a public hearing and without giving sufficient reasons for its decision.       QUESTIONS 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: (a) Was the principle of equality of arms respected and could the applicant effectively participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court with regard to the fact that he was not notified of the HJC’s submission, nor given the opportunity to comment on it (see Kress v. France [GC], no.   39594/98, §   65, ECHR 2001-VI; Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (no. 3) , no.   25053/05, § 41, 21 June 2007; and Janáček v. the Czech Republic , no.   9634/17, §§ 46-54, 2   February 2023)? (b) Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 47, ECHR 2002-V, and Selmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 67259/14, §§ 36-43, 9 February 2017)? Do sections 100 and 103 of the Constitutional Court Act provide for a public hearing in cases such as the applicant’s? The parties are invited to submit copies of relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court. (c) Was the Constitutional Court’s decision of 27 February 2024 sufficiently reasoned (see Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 5386/10, § 91, 24 March 2022, and Alonso Saura v. Spain , no. 18326/19, §§ 34-40, 8 June 2023)? What is the scope of the Constitutional Court’s judicial review of decisions on the appointment of judges by the HJC?