FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ALEKSIĆ v. CROATIA
(Application no. 12422/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 December 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Aleksić v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 12422/10) 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”) by two Serbian nationals, Mr Milan Aleksić and Ms Olga Aleksić (“the applicants”), on 8 January 2010.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr N. Mamula, a lawyer practising in Karlovac. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. On 18 May 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
4. The applicants were born in 1938 and 1944 respectively and live in Draginje, Serbia.
5. On 15 November 2001 the applicants applied to the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu) for enforcement of a civil court judgment awarding him damages adopted on 28 August 1991 by the Šabac Municipal Court in Serbia.
6. On 4 March 2005 the case was forwarded to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
7. The applicants’ motion for enforcement was declared inadmissible on 24 October 2005 on the ground that the Šabac Municipal Court judgment had never been recognised in Croatia.
8. This decision was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 3 January 2006 and served its decision on the applicants’ representative on 17 February 2006.
9. On 20 March 2006 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske).
10. On 10 June 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint as ill-founded.
11. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicants’ representative on 10 July 2009.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
12. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
13. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to use the domestic length-of-proceedings remedies concerning the length of the enforcement proceedings in their part before the Karlovac Municipal Court and the Zagreb Municipal Court. They also considered that the six-month time-limit should be calculated from the decision of the Zagreb County Court of 3 January 2006 when the enforcement proceedings before the civil courts had ended. Thus, in the Government’s view, since the applicants had lodged their application with the Court in January 2010, they had failed to comply with the six-month rule.
14. The Court first refers to its decision in the Slaviček case, where it held that since 15 March 2002 a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act had represented an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of court proceedings in Croatia (see Slaviček v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII). It further refers to its judgment in the Pavić case, where it held that as of 29 December 2005 a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under sections 27 and 28 of the Courts Act has become an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of court proceedings in Croatia (see Pavić v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 36, 28 January 2010). It follows that in the period between 15 March 2002 and 28 December 2005 the applicants could have lodged a constitutional complaint to complain about the length of proceedings in their part before the first- and the second-instance court, and in the period between 29 December 2005 and 17 February 2006 (the date when the second-instance decision was served on the applicants’ representative) to lodge a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time However, they did not do so. It follows that in so far as the applicants’ complaint concerns the proceedings in their part before the ordinary courts it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary to examine the Government’s further inadmissibility objection based on non-compliance with the six-month rule.
15. On the other hand, to the extent that this complaint concerns the length of proceedings in their part before the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that it is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
16. The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 March 2006 when the applicant lodged his constitutional complaint and ended on 10 July 2009 when the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative. It thus lasted almost three years and four months.
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
17. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
18. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for example, Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 21, 16 June 2005; and Bečeheli v. Croatia, no. 8855/08, §§ 17 and 20, 2 May 2013).
19. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
20. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
21. The applicants also complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they could not enforce the Šabac Municipal Court in Croatia.
22. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
24. The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 December 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy