CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 20 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16484/24 Josip DEDIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 June 2024 communicated on 29 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of access to the Supreme Court in civil proceedings concerning the applicant’s wrongful dismissal. On 14 February 2023 the applicant’s representative received in her official mailbox a second-instance judgment. Upon expiry of 15 days from the date of the receipt, the applicant’s representative received the official electronic acknowledgment of the delivery indicating that the delivery was considered to have been carried out on 2 March 2023. On 1 April 2023 the applicant lodged his petition for leave to appeal on points of law ( revizija ) which the Supreme Court rejected as being out of time. It explained that the second-instance decision had been served on the applicant’s representative on 1 March 2023, and that the thirty-day time-limit started running from the following day, i.e. 2 March 2023. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a breach of his right of access to court due to the Supreme Court’s disregard of the electronic acknowledgment of the delivery and misinterpretation of the starting date of the thirty-day time-limit. The Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint finding that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the delivery date and staring point of the time-limit did not constitute a breach of his right to access to court. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, about a breach of his right of access to the Supreme Court.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the Supreme Court’s finding that the applicant’s petition for leave to appeal on points of law had been lodged out of time deprive him of his right of access to court to an extent incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Maresti v. Croatia , no. 55759/07, §§ 33-43, 25 June 2009, and Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain , nos. 38366/97 and 9 others, §§   33-39, 25 January 2000)?