SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KOZINA BARIŠIĆ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
(Application no. 12905/22)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kozina Barišić and Others v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Frédéric Krenc, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 March 2022.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr J. Giljanović, a lawyer practising in Split.
3. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
8. In the leading cases of Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020, and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, 30 July 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level.
10. In particular, the Government argued that the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that they, unlike the first applicant, had never lodged a constitutional complaint to complain of the length of the proceedings in question. The Court has already rejected a similar inadmissibility objection in an earlier case against Croatia (see Uljar and Others v. Croatia, no. 32668/02, § 32, 8 March 2007). It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case. All the applicants were parties to the proceedings in question and were thus affected by the violation complained of to the same extent (contrast with Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 80-84, 27 May 2010). Since the first applicant’s constitutional complaint was dismissed, a constitutional complaint lodged by the remaining applicants would not have had any prospect of success. The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected.
11. 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.
12. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kirinčić and Others, cited above, §§ 120-28, and Mirjana Marić, cited above, §§ 98-104), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;Holds,(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Frédéric Krenc
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant starting date
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic court / file number
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant /household
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
(in euros)[2]
12905/22
01/03/2022
(5 applicants)
Tihana KOZINA BARIŠIĆ
1987
Zdravko KOZINA
1963
Household
Krunoslav KOZINA
1995
Luca KOZINA
1990
Kristina SFARČIĆ
1988
Giljanović Josip
Split
24/02/2010
pending
More than
12 years and
9 months
1 level of jurisdiction
Split Municipal Court,
no. P-763/2010
7,000
1,163
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.