FIRST SECTION
CASE OF CARIĆ v. CROATIA
(Application no. 58650/12)
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 17 June 2014
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
STRASBOURG
24 April 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Carić v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 April 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 58650/12) 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 a Croatian national, Mr Milan Carić (“the applicant”), on 10 August 2012.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms S. Fridrih, a lawyer practising in Sisak. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. On 6 May 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Petrinja.
A. The civil proceedings
1. The principal proceedings
5. On 9 October 2000 the applicant lodged a civil action in the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku) seeking payment of unpaid pension instalments.
6. On 4 July 2002 the Sisak Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel administrative proceedings before the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje). The applicant appealed.
7. On 16 January 2003 the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
8. On 5 January 2012 the Sisak Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.
9. On 10 February 2012 the Sisak Municipal Court adopted a judgement and the applicant appealed.
10. On 31 May 2012 the Sisak County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
2. Proceedings following the applicant’s request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time
11. Meanwhile, on 24 November 2011 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Sisak County Court, complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings.
12. On 24 January 2012 the Sisak County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 4,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Sisak Municipal Court to decide on the applicant’s case within six months of the service of its decision.
13. Following an appeal by the State Attorney, on 4 June 2012 the three‑member panel of the Supreme Court reduced the amount of compensation awarded to HRK 500.
14. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint and on 18 October 2012 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared it inadmissible.
B. The administrative proceedings
1. The principal proceedings
15. On 19 April 2001 the Croatian Pension Fund, Sisak Regional Office (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područni ured u Sisku) decided about the applicant’s request for payment of his pension arrears.
16. On 15 May 2001 the applicant appealed.
17. On 13 July 2001 the Croatian Pension Fund, Central Office (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnji ured) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
18. Following the applicant’s administrative action, on 2 March 2006 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the second-instance decision and remitted the case to the Central Office.
19. On 8 May 2006 the Central Office quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Sisak Regional Office.
20. On 18 September 2006 the Sisak Regional Office adopted a new decision and the applicant again appealed.
21. On 3 April 2007 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
22. On 7 July 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent administrative action.
2. Proceedings following the applicant’s request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time
23. On 12 May 2011 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above administrative proceedings.
24. By a decision of 5 October 2011 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him HRK 6,500 in compensation.
25. The applicant appealed and on 7 September 2012 the three-judge panel of the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
26. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings 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 his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
27. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They pointed out, in view of the fact that the civil proceedings had been stayed pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings, that the domestic courts had acknowledged a violation of his right to a trial within reasonable time, adopted their decisions within the relevant time-limit ordered by the higher court and awarded the applicant sufficient compensation.
28. The applicant disagreed with the Government.
29. The Court notes that at the time when the Sisak County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within reasonable time, awarded him HRK 500 in compensation and ordered that the proceedings be terminated within six months, the civil proceedings had been pending for some eleven years and two months before two levels of jurisdiction. The proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings which the Supreme Court found to be excessively long and therefore awarded the applicant HRK 6,500 in compensation. Thus, taking into account the amount of compensation which the Sisak County Court and the Supreme Court awarded, the Court finds that the amounts of compensation awarded at the domestic level do not correspond to what the Court would have been likely to award under Article 41 of the Convention for the protracted length of the civil proceedings in respect of the same period (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V).
30. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant has not lost his victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. It follows that the Government’s objection must be rejected.
31. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
32. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
33. 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 Frydlender, cited above).
34. 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.
35. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
36. 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.”
A. Damage
37. The applicant claimed 3,250 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
38. The Government considered the applicant’s claim excessive, unfounded and unsubstantiated.[1]
39. The Court reiterates that where an applicant had resorted to an available domestic remedy and thereby obtained a finding of a violation and was awarded compensation, but can nevertheless still claim to be a “victim”, the amount to be awarded under Article 41 may be less than the amounts the Court was awarding in similar cases. In that case an applicant must be awarded the difference between the amount obtained from the domestic courts and an amount that would not have been regarded as manifestly unreasonable compared with the amounts awarded by the Court. An applicant should also be awarded an amount in respect of stages of the proceedings that may not have been taken into account by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], cited above, §§ 139-141; Jakupović v. Croatia, no. 12419/04, § 33, 31 July 2007; Skokandić v. Croatia, no. 43714/02, § 59, 31 July 2007; Husić v. Croatia, no. 14878/04, § 31, 25 October 2007; and Letica v. Croatia, no. 27846/05, § 34, 18 October 2007).
40. The Court reiterates that the applicant was awarded approximately EUR 930 by the domestic authorities (see paragraph 29 above). Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the characteristics of the request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, as well as the fact that, notwithstanding this domestic remedy, the Court has found a violation, it considers, ruling on an equitable basis, that the applicant should be awarded EUR 1,800 in respect of the period at issue.
41. Accordingly, the applicant is awarded the sum of EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
42. The applicant also claimed EUR 2,075 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the Court.
43. The Government considered the applicant’s claim unsubstantiated and unreasonable.[2]
44. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
45. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months the following amounts, to be converted into Croatian kuna at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 April 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachMirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] Rectified on 17 June 2014: the text was ”The Government did not express any opinion on the matter.”
[2] Rectified on 17 June 2014: the text was ”The Government did not express any opinion on the matter.”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy