Communicated on 20 October 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 48921/13
Ilinka ČAKAREVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 9 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ilinka Čakarević, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Rijeka. She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Bradamante, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 December 1995 the applicant’s employment was terminated as a result of her employer becoming insolvent.
1. Administrative proceedings
On 5 November 1996 the regional office of the Croatian Employment Bureau in Rijeka (Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Područna služba u Rijeci, hereinafter “the Rijeka Employment Bureau”) granted the applicant unemployment benefits.
On 27 June 1997 the Rijeka Employment Bureau renewed the applicant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits until further notice.
On 27 March 2001 the Rijeka Employment Bureau terminated the applicant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits with effect from 10 June 1998.
The applicant lodged an appeal with the Central Office of the Croatian Employment Bureau (Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Središnja služba, hereinafter “the Central Employment Bureau”). However, that body dismissed her appeal as unfounded on 11 May 2001. It held that the applicant had been entitled to unemployment benefits for as long as she had been unable to work, but subject to a limit of twelve months.
The applicant then lodged an administrative action with the Administrative Court, which rejected it as unfounded on 22 September 2004.
On 14 April 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Rijeka Employment Bureau, seeking to overturn its 27 March 2001 decision to terminate her entitlement to unemployment benefits. She maintained that the Bureau had wrongly applied the relevant law.
On 29 June 2009 the Rijeka Employment Bureau dismissed her application.
The applicant then lodged an appeal with the Central Employment Bureau, which, acting as a second-instance administrative body, dismissed the appeal as unfounded.
The applicant then lodged an administrative action with the High Administrative Court, which on 5 July 2012 rejected her claim, holding that the statutory conditions for overturning the first-instance administrative decision of 27 March 2001 had not been fulfilled.
Her subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 19 December 2012.
2. Civil proceedings
On 3 August 2005 the Rijeka Employment Bureau brought a civil action against the applicant for unjust enrichment, seeking repayment of 19,451.69 Croatian kunas (HRK) on the basis of the unemployment benefits received by the applicant between 10 June 1998 and 27 March 2001.
On an unknown date the applicant brought a counterclaim against the Rijeka Employment Bureau, seeking payment of unemployment benefits from 31 January 2011 to the date of her retirement, in the amount of HRK 55,680.15.
On 26 June 2006 the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) dismissed the Rijeka Employment Bureau’s claim as unfounded. It held that the applicant could not be held responsible for the claimant’s errors and negligence, particularly bearing in mind that she had not concealed any fact or misled the claimant. The same court also rejected the applicant’s counterclaim, given that a final and binding decision on the applicant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits had already been adopted in the administrative proceedings, and that such a decision could not be contested in the context of civil proceedings.
Both the applicant and the claimant lodged appeals against the first‑instance judgment.
On 25 February 2009 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment with regard to the applicant’s counterclaim. It also allowed the claimant’s appeal, reversed the first-instance judgment in respect of the unjust enrichment claim, and ordered the applicant to pay HRK 19,451.69 plus interest to the Croatian Employment Bureau.
The applicant then lodged both an appeal on points of law and a constitutional complaint.
On 28 April 2010 the Supreme Court declared her appeal on points of law inadmissible. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision.
On 14 March 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed both of her constitutional complaints as ill-founded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions was violated because the national courts ordered her to repay HRK 19,451.69 to the Croatian Unemployment Bureau in respect of unemployment benefits she had received over a period of more than three years, even though the payment of those benefits was solely the result of an error on the part of the State authorities.
She also complains that the above decision severely affected her. As an unemployed person with no income and in poor health, it put her in a very difficult situation and threatened her well-being, effectively leaving her destitute.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the Rijeka County Court’s judgment of 25 February 2009 deprive the applicant of her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the interference justified under this provision? In particular, was it proportionate?
2. Did the Rijeka County Court’s judgment of 25 February 2009 amount to an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference justified under this provision? In particular, was it proportionate?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy