SESAR proti Chorvatsku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11058/24
Boris SESAR
against Croatia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 February 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Raffaele Sabato, President,
Artūrs Kučs,
Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 April 2024,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

He was represented by Ms S. Budimir, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

His complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning a breach of the principle of equality of arms was communicated to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), while the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that in judicial review proceedings against a decision of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest finding that his actions were in breach of the relevant law and imposing a fine, the High Administrative Court had failed to forward him the defendant authority’s response to his action for judicial review. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

After the failure of the attempt to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 17 November 2025 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

By a letter of 16 December 2025, the applicant requested the Court to continue the examination of his case. He argued that the unfairness of the proceedings, followed by unreasonable negative attention of the public, had resulted in irreparable moral and reputational damage for him, which only a Court’s judgment could remedy.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints about not being given an opportunity to have knowledge of and to comment on the observations filed by the other party in the proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Hrdalo v. Croatia, no. 23272/07, §§ 34‑40, 27 September 2011, and Maravić Markeš v. Croatia, no. 70923/11, §§ 46-57, 9 January 2014).

As for the redress available to the applicant, the Court is satisfied that the applicant can rely on section 137(1) of the Administrative Disputes Act and seek the reopening of domestic proceedings following a decision striking out his application on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration.

Furthermore, noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (in the comparable case of Maravić Markeš, cited above, § 63, the Court held that the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant might have sustained), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2026.

Viktoriya Maradudina Raffaele Sabato
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(Adversarial procedure or equality of arms)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.