CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 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 } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 15 December 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37010/23 Zdenko MAKARUNIĆ against Croatia lodged on 26 September 2023 communicated on 25 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the costs of criminal proceedings, which the applicant had to pay to the defendant once the charges against him were dismissed on account of the expiry of the statutory time-limit. The applicant lodged a private criminal action against another person on charges of having inflicted bodily injury by cutting his arm with a grass hook. Following a remittal, the first-instance court acquitted the defendant as it found the charges unfounded. Following an appeal by the applicant, the second-instance court dismissed the charges due to the statutory time-limit having expired. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. On 3 May 2023 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible. Acknowledging that under Article   149(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the private prosecutor is to reimburse the costs of the proceedings which were discontinued due to the prosecution becoming time-barred, unless the prescription occurred due to the delay in the proceedings not caused by the private prosecutor, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant had failed to show that the delay in the proceedings was not the consequence of his own conduct. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the fact that he was ordered to pay the costs of proceedings even though the charges were dismissed through no fault of his own, but due to the domestic courts’ procrastination, which ultimately caused the statutory time-limit to expire. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case as regards the applicant’s obligation to pay the costs of the proceedings (see Leuska and Others v. Estonia , no.   64734/11, §§ 50-52, 7 November 2017, and Jakutavičius v. Lithuania , no.   42180/19, §§ 55-60, 13 February 2024?)   2.     If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, §§ 76-97, 18 July 2013, and Čolić v. Croatia , no. 49083/18, §§ 39-60, 18 November 2021)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see Klauz , cited above, §§   108-10, and Čolić , cited above, §§ 67-70; see also the Supreme Court’s judgment no.   Kzz ‑ 21/2024-6 of 22 January 2025, and Varaždin County Court’s judgment Kž-299/2025-3 of 27 May 2025)?