5.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1971 respectively and live in Slatina, Croatia. They are father and son. 6.  The first applicant is a lawyer practising in Slatina. He was admitted to the Croatian Bar on 1 April 2003. 7.  The first applicant lodged a civil action in the Slatina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slatini) on 2 December 1987 against the predecessor body of the Virovitičko-Podravska County (Županija Virovitičko-podravska), the State and a certain A.K., as well as an insurance company, C.O., claiming damages concerning an alleged physical attack by A.K. The second applicant joined the action several days later. 8.  In 1990 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) delegated the case to the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici). 9.  The Virovitica Municipal Court declared the applicants’ action inadmissible on 24 March 2000, giving as the reason that they had not complied with the Municipal Court’s request that they rectify their action. 10.  The Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on 30 November 2000 and upheld the first-instance decision. 11.  On 21 November 2001 the Supreme Court allowed appeals on points of law (revizija) by both applicants, quashed the decisions of the lower courts, and remitted the case to the Virovitica Municipal Court for fresh consideration. 12.  In a fresh set of proceedings on 3 June 2004 the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed the applicants’ civil action as without merit. In its judgment, the Municipal Court enumerated the evidence examined during the proceedings. The list of evidence contained, inter alia, the decision of the Executive Board of the Croatian Bar Association of 27 March 2003, by which the first applicant had been admitted to the Bar. A copy of this decision formed page 250 of the case file. 13.  On 2 March 2006 the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici) allowed the applicants’ appeal in part. It upheld the first-instance judgment concerning the merits and quashed the decision on the costs and expenses. It remitted the case for fresh consideration in respect of costs and expenses. 14.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 27 March 2006 against the judgment of the County Court by which the first-instance judgment of the Virovitica Municipal Court had been upheld. 15.  Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act entered into force on 1 October 2008 (see paragraph 26 below). 16.  On 29 October 2008 the Supreme Court, in respect of the applicants’ action against A.K., quashed the judgments of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 17.  In the fresh set of proceedings on 1 March 2010, the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action against A.K. 18.  On 11 March 2010 the Virovitica Municipal Court ordered the first applicant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings in the total amount of 439,303 Croatian kunas[1] (HRK) and the second applicant in the total amount of HRK 233,797[2]. 19.  On 9 September 2010 the Virovitica County Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld both the first-instance judgment on the applicants’ action against A.K. and the first-instance decision on costs and expenses. 20.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 30 September 2010. It was signed by the first applicant. 21.  The Supreme Court separated the applicants’ appeal on points of law into one appeal against the judgment on the merits and another against the decision on costs and expenses. On 17 November 2010 it declared both of them inadmissible on the ground of lack of locus standi. The relevant part of the decisions reads:
“Under section 91(a) § 1 of the Civil Procedure Act ... a party to the proceedings may lodge an appeal on points of law only through a representative who is a lawyer. Under Article 91(a) § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as an exception to § 1 ... a party may lodge an appeal on points of law himself only if he has passed the Bar exam, or through a representative ... who is not a practising lawyer, if that representative has passed the Bar exam. Under Article 91(a) § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure the party, or his representative under § 1 of this Article, are obliged to submit an original or a copy of the Bar exam certificate ...
In the case in issue the first plaintiff, Mehmedalija Omerović, lodged an appeal on points of law himself, not through a legal representative, and therefore under Article 91(a) § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure he was obliged to submit a Bar exam certificate, since no original or certified copy of such a certificate had ever been placed in the case file.
This court finds that the first plaintiff, Mehmedalija Omerović, acting as a representative of the second plaintiff, Sanmir Omerović, has never submitted an original or certified copy of a Bar exam certificate during the proceedings or with their appeal on points of law, although he is obliged to do so under Article 91(a) § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 22.  On 30 December 2010 the applicants lodged constitutional complaints with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decisions of the Supreme Court. On 19 May 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaints inadmissible on the grounds that the contested decisions had not concerned the merits of the case and as such were not susceptible to constitutional review. The decisions of the Constitutional Court were served on the applicants on 6 June 2011. 23.  In the meantime, the applicants lodged a request for restoring the proceedings to the status quo ante (prijedlog za povrat u prijašnje stanje) in the appeal on points of law before the Virovitica Municipal Court, with the addition of the first applicant’s Bar exam certificate. The Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed their request as without merit on 13 January 2011. 24.  The Bjelovar County Court dismissed the appeals of the applicants and upheld the first-instance decision on 24 February 2011. The applicants lodged appeals on points of law against those decisions. 25.  On 18 May 2011 the Supreme Court declared the applicants’ appeals on points of law inadmissible, on the grounds that the contested decisions had not been final decisions in the case, and as such were not susceptible to appeal on points of law.