FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 58115/00
by Gojko ČULJAK, Branko ČULJAK and MESOPRODUKT
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 16 December 1999 and registered on 15 June 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is a Croatian citizen, while the second applicant is both a Croatian and an Australian citizen. They were born in 1958 and 1959, respectively, and live in Požega. The third applicant is a company for meat production - “Mesoprodukt”, owned by the first and second applicants. They are represented before the Court by Mr I. Žalac, a lawyer practising in Slavonski Brod.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1991 the first and second applicants founded a company for meat production - “Mesoprodukt”, in Požega. The present case concerns several proceedings in respect of “Mesoprodukt”.
I
By virtue of the Požega County Veterinary Inspection (veterinarski inspektor Ureda za gospodarstvo Županije požeško-slavonske) decision of 26 May 1994, the applicant company was prohibited from slaughtering animals and producing meat for human consumption.
Upon the applicant company’s appeal the Appeal Commission of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Uprava za veterinarstvo poljoprivrede i šumarstva) quashed the first instance decision on 14 June 1994.
On 14 November 1994 the applicant company filed a suit with the Požega Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Požegi) seeking payment of damages from the Požega and Slavonija County (Županija Požeško-Slavonska), due to the fact that it had been prohibited from producing meat from 26 May 1994 until 14 June 1994. The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
II
On 18 March 1994 the police seized a vehicle owned by the first applicant’s wife. The vehicle had been used for transportation of goods related to “Mesoprodukt”. On 21 April the vehicle was returned.
On 14 November 1994 the applicant company filed a suit with the Požega Municipal Court against the Ministry of Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova) and the Ministry of Finance (Ministarstvo financija), seeking payment of damages for the profits lost due to its inability to transport goods with the above-said vehicle.
On 14 August 1996 the court of first instance ruled in the applicant company’s favour.
In September 1996 the defendants appealed against that decision. The proceedings have ever since been pending before the Požega County Court (Županijski sud u Požegi) as the appellate court.
III
On 9 December 1993 the Požega County Finance Police Office (Postaja financijske policije za Požeško-slavonsku županiju) ordered the applicant company to pay transfer and sale of goods tax (porez na promet proizvoda i usluga) in the amount of 179,837.52 Croatian Kunas (HRK) and 363,600.87 HRK in interest. As the applicants refused to pay those sums, the “Mesoprodukt’s” bank account was blocked.
The applicant company’s ensuing appeals were successful and on 13 January 1997 the above Ministry re-assessed the amount of tax to be paid to 64,955.00 HRK and 64,381,52 HRK in interest. The applicants paid those sums immediately after receiving this decision.
Subsequently, on 19 November 1997 the applicant company filed a suit with the Požega Municipal Court seeking payment of damages from the Ministry of Finance due to the fact that, had the authorities done the tax calculation correctly, the tax would been paid on time. Thus, there would have had been no need for blocking the bank account of the company.
In respect of the above-mentioned three sets of civil proceedings the applicant company lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) pursuant to Section 59 § 4 of the 1999 Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske - hereinafter “the Constitutional Court Act”), requesting the speeding up of those proceedings. By its decision of 4 May 2000 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company’s complaint.
The applicant company further sought the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act (Zakon o porezu na dohodak). However, on 22 September 1999 the request was denied as the Constitutional Court decided not to institute proceedings for revision of the constitutionality of that Act.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the three different sets of civil proceedings which commenced on 14 November 1994 and 19 November 1997, respectively. One set of proceedings commenced in 1994 are presently pending with the Požega County Court, while the other two sets of proceedings are pending with the Požega Municipal Court.
2. The applicants complain further, in respect of the Constitutional Court’s refusal to review the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act, alleging that this violates Article 17 of the Convention, their right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 2, 7, 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain about the length of the civil proceedings instituted on 14 November 1994 and 19 November 1997, respectively, in the Požega Municipal Court. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants complain further that the refusal of the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act violated their right to property and invoke Article 17 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as Articles, 2, 7, 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
The Court notes firstly that its competence is limited to the examination of the alleged violations of the Convention and its Protocols. Furthermore, even assuming that the applicants may claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 in respect of this part of the application, the Court finds that the facts as submitted do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint about[Note1] the length of the three sets of civil proceedings.
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy