Communicated on 16 April 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 5856/13
Milica RAMLJAK
against Croatia
lodged on 14 December 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Milica Ramljak, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Sinj. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Vukičević, a lawyer practising in Split.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 December 2005 M.R. instituted civil proceedings against the applicant before the Sinj Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sinju) in which he sought that a will be declared null and void. He was represented by V.LJ. and Ž.V., lawyers practising in Split.
On 8 December 2006 the Sinj Municipal Court adopted a judgment in the applicant’s favour.
The plaintiff lodged an appeal with the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu).
On 27 August 2009 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) in a panel of three judges, presided by judge D.P., reversed the first-instance judgment and accepted the plaintiff’s claim. It held that the first-instance court correctly established the facts but wrongly applied the relevant law.
The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law alleging, inter alia, that she had not had a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal because the president of the panel of the Split County Court, judge D.P., which adopted the judgment of 27 August 2009, was the father of a legal trainee working at Law Office of V.LJ. and Ž.V. who were the plaintiff’s representatives in the impugned proceedings.
On 14 September 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unfounded and upheld the second-instance judgment.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 15 September 2011 by the Constitutional Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the Split County Court was not impartial because of the participation of judge D.P. whose son N.P. was a legal trainee in the law office which represented her opponent in the civil proceedings at issue.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the fact that the presiding judge of the panel of the Split County Court, which examined the applicant’s appeal, was the father of the legal trainee at the law office that represented the applicant’s opponent in the proceedings amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy