CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 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 } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23600/25 E.M. against Croatia lodged on 27 July 2025 communicated on 24 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the absence of effective judicial review of the State Attorney Council’s (“the SAC”) refusal to appoint the applicant to a deputy state attorney office without disclosing reasons. In 2023 the applicant, who had been a judicial advisor in a municipal court and had completed the State School for Judicial Officials, applied for two vacant deputy municipal state attorney posts. Following the evaluation of the candidates’ work experience, grades at the State School, interviews, and the results of the vetting procedure and psychological testing, the SAC concluded that both the first-placed candidate and the second-placed candidate (the   applicant) had satisfied the statutory requirements for appointment. However, only the first-placed candidate was unanimously appointed to one of the vacant posts. The applicant was refused appointment to the second post because he had failed to obtain the requisite number of votes following a secret ballot. The decision contained no further reasons. The applicant’s constitutional complaint against the said decision was dismissed on 12   February 2024 (decision served on 27   March 2025). The   Constitutional Court accepted the SAC’s position that decisions not to appoint candidates to vacant deputy state attorney posts did not need to be reasoned. It also concluded that such decisions did not amount to the determination of their civil rights and were not open to judicial review before the Constitutional Court. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial had been violated in that the decision not to appoint him to office had neither been reasoned nor open to judicial review. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (cf. Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no.   24492/21, §§   39-58, 20 June 2023, and Majski v. Croatia (no.   2) , no.   16924/08, §§   49 ‑ 55, 19 July 2011)?   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 (compare with Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no. 24492/21, §§   62-70, 20   June 2023, and Kövesi v. Romania, no. 3594/19, §§   145-47 and 153-58, 5   May 2020)?