FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ZGLAVNIK v. CROATIA
(Application no. 28018/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 July 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zglavnik v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 28018/10) 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 a Croatian national, Ms Zvjezdana Zglavnik, (“the applicant”), on 28 April 2010.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms V. Pušić Miličević, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which she was a party was excessive.
4. On 6 July 2011 the Vice-President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No.14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three judges. It was also decided that the Committee would rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Osijek.
6. On 11 December 2002 the applicant sought enforcement of a monetary obligation stipulated in a notary deed (javnobilježnička isprava) against Mr S.T. before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
7. On 10 April 2003 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution by seizure and sale of S.T.’s immovable property in satisfaction of the applicant’s claim of 186,278.40 Croatian kunas (HRK). The proceedings are still pending.
8. On 20 October 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
9. On 25 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 6,000 in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to complete the enforcement within seven months of service of its decision.
10. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 2 September 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) awarded her additional HRK 2,000 in compensation. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 21 September 2009.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant complained that the length of the 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
12. 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
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 11 December 2002 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted for nine years and six months at one level of jurisdiction.
14. 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, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Mačinković v. Croatia, no. 29759/04, § 37, 7 December 2006).
15. 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, Oreb v. Croatia, no. 9951/06, 23 October 2008; and Alagić v. Croatia, no. 17656/07, 11 February 2010). 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.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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
17. The applicant claimed 72,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
18. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis and taking into account the amount granted by the national courts, it awards award her EUR 3,700 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
19. The applicant also claimed EUR 405 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 810 for those incurred before the Court.
20. 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 170 for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and the sum claimed in full for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
21. 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 kunas at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,700 (three thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 980 (nine hundred eighty 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 July 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André WampachPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy