CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 205 March 2017 Zubac v. Croatia (referral) - 40160/12 Judgment 11.10.2016 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Excessively formalistic interpretation of procedural rules: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicant’s late husband was a claimant in civil proceedings. In his statement of claim he gave the value of his claim as 10,000 Croatian Kuna (HRK). During the proceedings he indicated that the value was HRK 105,000 and it was this latter amount that was accepted by the first and second-instance courts. In March 2011 the Supreme Court declared his appeal inadmissible ratione valoris considering that, as he had indicated the value of his claim at 10,000 in the statement of claim, the value of the subject-matter in dispute did not reach the statutory threshold of HRK 100,000. In the Convention proceedings the applicant complained, relying on Article 6 §   1, that her late husband had been deprived of access to the Supreme Court. In a judgment of 11   October 2016 a Chamber of the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1. In the Court’s view the Supreme Court had interpreted the relevant procedural rules on the value of the subject matter in an excessively formalistic manner thus placing the burden of the lower courts’ errors on the applicant and, in doing so, acting contrary to the general principle of procedural fairness inherent in Article   6. On 6 March 2017 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes