CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } Published on 26 May 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 130/25 Mara PANIĆ against Croatia lodged on 16 December 2024 communicated on 5 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the protracted period it took the Croatian authorities to decide the applicant’s request for citizenship, and their subsequent refusal to compensate her for the damage sustained. In 1997 the applicant, who was born in Serbia but had lived in Croatia before moving to Germany in 1991, lodged a request to be granted Croatian citizenship. After her request was twice rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, each of those decisions were quashed by the administrative courts and the applicant was finally granted Croatian citizenship in 2014. In 2016 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State seeking compensation for the damage incurred to her due to the unlawful or wrongful conduct of the Ministry of the Interior. In particular, she alleged that it took the domestic authorities almost 20 years to decide on her request for citizenship, during which time the Ministry of the Interior had twice unlawfully dismissed her request. Meanwhile, as a stateless person residing in Germany, she had faced significant legal uncertainty affecting many facets of her private life (inability to travel outside of her area of residence, to attend her mother’s and stepfather’s funerals etc.). The domestic courts dismissed her claim on the grounds that she herself had contributed to the protracted nature of the proceedings in that she had failed to lodge an action for failure to respond ( tužba zbog šutnje administracije ) while the proceedings were pending before the administrative authorities. The applicant complains, relying on Articles   6 and 8 of the Convention, that the unlawful and wrongful conduct of the State authorities resulted in her request for citizenship being decided only after 17 years, and that the State has failed to compensate her for the prejudice to her private life during that period.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life on account of the prolonged period it took the authorities to process her request for Croatian citizenship, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (compare Hoti v.   Croatia , no.   63311/14, §§   119-43, 26   April 2018, and   Sudita Keita v.   Hungary , no.   42321/15, §§   31-42, 12   May 2020)?