4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Zagreb. 5.  On 28 April 2008 the daily newspaper B. published an article under the headline “Mob Lawyer joins the Supervisory Board”, describing the applicant as an extortionist. 6.  On 27 May 2008 the applicant’s representative asked the publisher to publish a correction of that information. The publisher neither replied nor published a correction of the disputed information. 7.  On 9 July 2008, after the expiry of the deadline envisaged in the relevant provisions of the Media Act (Zakon o medijima) to publish a correction, the applicant brought a civil action against the publisher in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu), claiming non-pecuniary damage. 8.  On 10 July 2009 the publisher replied stating in particular that the applicant had failed to submit a power of attorney with his request. 9.  At a hearing held on 31 January 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court heard evidence from the applicant who said that he had authorised his representative to act on his behalf vis-à-vis the publisher. 10.  On 31 January 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, relying on sections 22(2) and 40(3) of the Media Act, declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible. The first-instance court held that the request for the publication of a correction of the disputed information had not been signed by a duly authorised person because the applicant had not proved that his representative had actually submitted a power of attorney with the request.
The relevant part of the decision reads:
“In his testimony, the [applicant] stated that he had given power of attorney to his counsel, [Lj.P], authorising her to institute both criminal and civil proceedings for defamation ... He was present during the preparation of a draft of the request for the correction of the disputed information ...
...
This court does not accept the [applicant]’s evidence because the [applicant] has no direct knowledge of what was ultimately sent to the defendant ... On the other hand, the [applicant’s] statement concerning the granting of a power of attorney is of no relevance for the solution to the specific legal issue ...
...
Given that the request for the publication of a correction of the disputed information was not signed by the [applicant], but by his counsel, [Lj.P.], and that it was not accompanied with a power of attorney, the [applicant] has not proved that he had properly requested the publication of a correction of the disputed information ... an action which is, pursuant to section 22(2) of the Media Act, a procedural requirement for bringing a civil action for non-pecuniary damage against the publisher ...” 11.  On 19 November 2012 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision. 12.  On 14 March 2013 the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined.