4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Opatija. 5.  On 23 October 2002 the applicant brought a civil action in the Opatija Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Opatiji) against D. K. and J. K., seeking termination of a contract for lifelong maintenance (ugovor o doživotnom uzdržavanju). She enclosed a copy of the contract in question, drawn up on 3 August 1993, and its annex of 30 November 1999. The contract stipulated that the defendants were to care for the applicant until her death in order to acquire all her property post mortem. She also asked that two witnesses, E. P. and Š. T., be heard. The defendants submitted receipts for monthly payments for the applicant’s maintenance and asked that four witnesses be heard. 6.  At the hearing held on 6 February 2003 the Municipal Court heard evidence from the parties and after that, in the presence of the applicant’s counsel, scheduled the next hearing for 17 March 2003. The applicant’s counsel fell ill and had to be hospitalised pending urgent surgery. On 11 March 2003 he sent a fax to the Municipal Court excusing himself from the hearing scheduled for 17 March and asked for an adjournment of the hearing. However, the Municipal Court proceeded with the hearing and heard two witnesses, Lj. M. and Š. M., the parents of one of the defendants. It also scheduled a further hearing for 23 April 2003 and ordered that two other witnesses, also called on behalf of the defendants, be heard. Neither the applicant nor her counsel were notified of the hearing. 7.  The counsel did attend the hearing of 23 April 2003, which he had learned about by chance when at the Opatija Municipal Court on that day for other reasons. The Municipal Court heard two witnesses for the defendants, A. A. and I. P., as scheduled, but refused the proposal of the applicant’s counsel that five other witnesses be heard. The relevant parts of the transcript of the hearing read as follows:
“Counsel for the plaintiff asks that the plaintiff’s neighbours M. C., S. R., V. G., N. I. and N. Z. be heard as witnesses about the circumstances of the applicant’s daily life and the care she has received from them in the past two years and in particular in the period of four months following her release from a hospital, when she was immobile.
...
Counsel for the plaintiff withdraws his request that E. P. be called as a witness since, according to the plaintiff, that person is not able to attend a hearing at the court.
The judge decides that evidence is not to be heard from Š. T., E. P., M. C., S. R., V. G., N. I. and N. Z. and no further evidence is to be presented.”
The Municipal Court proceeded by closing the proceedings and pronouncing its judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
“In view of the above, the court considers that the factual background has been fully established on the basis of the parties’ testimony and in particular in the contract for lifelong maintenance and its annex and the enclosed receipts for payment. For that reason the court declined to hear evidence from the witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff, because these witnesses cannot tell the court anything of influence on its judgment, save for the fact that they, owing to the plaintiff’s age, have been increasingly assisting her on a daily basis. For precisely that reason the court is not relying on the evidence heard from the witnesses Lj. M., Š. M. and A. A.” 8.  A subsequent appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 10 December 2003. 9.  On 12 February 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging, inter alia, that her right to a fair trial had been infringed, because the hearing of 17 March 2003 had been held in the absence of her counsel who had duly excused himself due to his urgent hospitalisation and that she had thus been prevented from questioning two witnesses. Furthermore, neither she nor her counsel had been notified of the hearing scheduled for 23 April 2003. Although her counsel did attend the hearing, which he had learned about by chance on the very same day, he had not been able to prepare himself to question the two further witnesses who had been heard at that hearing. Thus, she had been prevented from questioning any of the four witnesses, all of whom had been heard on behalf of the defendants. Finally, she complained that the Opatija Municipal Court had refused to hear any of her seven witnesses. On 21 June 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the complaint as ill-founded.