Published on 3 August 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 6997/25
PHARMACIA LABORATORIJ D.O.O.
against Croatia
lodged on 27 February 2025
communicated on 30 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged violation of the principle of legal certainty.
The applicant company had two shareholders, one of whom died in 2019. Due to a dispute between the shareholder’s alleged testamentary heir, Mrs J., and his alleged statutory heirs, on 5 March 2020 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court instructed them to initiate civil proceedings to determine their inheritance rights. During those civil proceedings, Mrs J. instituted several proceedings against the applicant company.
In the proceedings complained of, Mrs J. requested the Zagreb Commercial Court to grant her access to the applicant company’s business records. On 14 March 2023 the High Commercial Court granted her access, finding that she could exercise the shareholder’s right to information even on the basis of a contested will.
The applicant company lodged a motion for leave to appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, seeking an answer to the question whether Mrs J. could independently exercise a shareholder’s right to information, despite her inheritance rights being contested in court by the alleged statutory heirs.
Meanwhile, in a parallel set of proceedings between the same parties concerning the same legal issues as raised in the applicant company’s motion for leave to appeal, on 5 June 2023 the Zagreb Commercial Court requested the Supreme Court to initiate pilot proceedings (ogledni postupak) under section 502.j of the Civil Procedure Act. It informed the Supreme Court of four pending cases, and further twelve appellate proceedings, mainly concerning the applicant company and Mrs J., some of which had been terminated by conflicting decisions.
In its pilot judgment no. Gop-1/2023-15 of 10 January 2024, a thirteen-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled that both testamentary and statutory heirs acquired shares upon the death of a shareholder, in the event of a pending dispute between heirs. However, until their inheritance rights had been determined by a final court decision and entered into the share register, they could exercise their shareholder rights only jointly with all potential heirs (in accordance with the rules applicable to joint ownership).
Nevertheless, in the proceedings complained of, on 25 January 2024 a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant company’s motion for leave to appeal on points of law, finding that the High Commercial Court’s decision of 14 March 2023 had been consistent with the Supreme Court’s pilot judgment.
On 10 April 2024 the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. It argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in the present proceedings had been manifestly inconsistent with its pilot judgment and that the Supreme Court had failed to remedy the acknowledged inconsistencies in the lower courts’ case-law. On 16 October 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as manifestly ill-founded (decision served on the applicant on 30 October 2024), finding the High Commercial Court’s decision consistent with the Supreme Court’s pilot judgment.
Before the Court, the applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court’s decision in its case was arbitrary, as it departed from the pilot judgment of that court, and that the Constitutional Court provided insufficient and irrelevant reasons in this regard.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the civil proceedings against it, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Did the five-judge panel of the Supreme Court “grossly misinterpret” the pilot judgment of that court in the circumstances of the present case, thereby dismissing the applicant company’s motion for leave to appeal on points of law on arbitrary grounds (compare Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 63-65, ECHR 2015)?
(b) Did different judicial formations of the Supreme Court adopt conflicting decisions in identical situations, in breach of the principle of legal certainty (compare Suverénní řád Maltézských rytířů - České velkopřevorství v. the Czech Republic, no. 15440/22, §§ 71-78, 11 September 2025, and Latorre Atance v. Spain, no. 33818/22, §§ 55-59, 18 December 2025)? If so, was the machinery provided for in domestic law to overcome inconsistencies in the case-law of lower courts appropriate and effective in the circumstances of the present case (compare Albu and Others v. Romania, nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, §§ 34 and 41, 10 May 2012)?
2. Did the Constitutional Court provide sufficient and relevant reasons for dismissing the complaints raised by the applicant company under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Cangı and Others v. Türkiye (no. 2), no. 65087/19, §§ 47 and 51-52, 8 July 2025)?