CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2026

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s4DB80EE1 { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s88ABD027 { width:24.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s52F1DADF { width:21.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC78EB19B { width:44.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A11E46B { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s91B8069D { width:24.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1CCA3914 { width:21.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F3A97C1 { width:44.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 16 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36780/23 Mila MIKECIN MIŠETIĆ against Croatia and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 27 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the election of ten (out of 13) Constitutional Court judges by the Croatian Parliament in 2016. The applicants applied for a post but were ultimately unsuccessful. They thus contested the election procedure before the Constitutional Court, alleging various irregularities. Namely, they submit that even before the public call for applications was published, several media outlets had published the names of the candidates – five of them supported by the ruling party, another five supported by the main opposition party – who had been expected to be shortlisted by the Parliamentary committee responsible for preparing a shortlist of candidates to be submitted to Parliament for a vote (“the Committee”). Allegedly, the shortlist was not adequately reasoned and largely corresponded to what had been published in the media. It contained the names of exactly 10 candidates, which the applicants consider was unusual and not in line with previous practice or section 6(4) of the Constitutional Court Act, according to which the shortlist was to comprise more candidates than the number of judges to be elected. The most problematic in the applicants’ view, however, was the fact that I.A.M., J. L., and D.M., three candidates who were at the same time members of Parliament, took part both in the work of the Committee, as well as in voting in the Parliament. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ two (separately lodged) constitutional complaints by adopting 16 separate decisions, all served on the applicants on 16 June 2023. In particular, sitting as a panel of nine judges, the Constitutional Court decided jointly, by two decisions, on the election of I.A.M., J. L., and D.M. As regards the election of the remaining seven judges, the Constitutional Court adopted 14 separate decisions sitting in panels of either eight or nine judges. Judges I.A.M., J. L. and D.M. recused themselves from the proceedings in all cases, whereas the remaining seven newly elected judges withdrew only in the proceedings concerning their own election.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants challenge the impartiality of the Constitutional Court on account of the participation of seven judges who had been elected in the contested election procedure. They argue that the fact that all seven judges recused themselves from deciding on their own election could not compensate for the fact that, by deciding in the remaining cases, they essentially decided on the election procedure through which they too had been elected, contrary to the principle of nemo iudex in causa sua . Furthermore, the applicants complain that, owing to the irregularities in the election procedure of the judges deciding on their constitutional complaints, their right to a tribunal established by law was also breached. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the involvement of the seven judges who had been elected by the contested Parliament’s decision, was the Constitutional Court impartial when it decided on the applicants’ constitutional complaints, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 60-65, 25 September 2018; A.K. v. Liechtenstein , no.   38191/12, § 68, 9 July 2015, and, mutatis mutandis , Guðmundur Gunnarsson and Magnús Davíð Norðdahl v. Iceland , nos. 24159/22 and   25751/22, §§ 87-90, 16 April 2024)?   2.     Having regard to the alleged irregularities in the election procedure, was the Constitutional Court, sitting in the compositions that decided the applicants’ constitutional complaints, a tribunal “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 218-52, 1 December 2020, and Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland , no. 4907/18, §§ 243-51, 7 May 2021)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 36780/23 01/10/2023 Mila MIKECIN MIŠETIĆ 1959 Zagreb Croatian   2. 36781/23 02/10/2023 3. 36783/23 03/10/2023 4. 36784/23 03/10/2023 Branka GENZIĆ-HORVAT 1959 Zagreb Croatian   5. 37115/23 03/10/2023