FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 2448/03
by Ivan DEBELIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 December 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 January 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivan Debelić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1939, and lives in Rab, Croatia.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Sometime in 1996 the company “J.” lodged an action against the applicant with the Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Rijeci) seeking restitution of business premises in the applicant’s possession and payment of rent.
On 16 August 1996 the applicant brought a counter claim against the company “J.” seeking payment of a certain amount of money on the basis of his investments in the business premises.
These two cases were joined.
On 2 October 1996 the Rijeka Commercial Court granted the claims for repossession and payment of rent and declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible because, as the plaintiff company had gone bankrupt, separate bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted and the applicant had failed to notify the bankruptcy council (stečajno vijeće) about his claim against the plaintiff company.
On 24 October 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision of 2 October 1996 to the High Commercial Court (Viskoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske).
On 11 February 1997 the High Commercial Court upheld the first instance judgment.
On 27 March 1997 the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law (reviziju) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
On 11 December 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request by a judgment which was served on the applicant on 6 May 2002.
In the meantime, on 10 April 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) pursuant to Section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske iz 2002), asking that court to determine a time–limit in which the Supreme Court should decide on his request for revision and to fix appropriate compensation in respect of the violation concerning his constitutional rights.
On 6 May 2002 the Supreme Court’s judgment of 11 December 2001 was served on the applicant.
On 2 October 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint finding that it did not satisfy the requirements from Section 63 § 1 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court because, in the meantime, the Supreme Court had decided on the applicant’s request for revision.Relevant domestic law
The relevant parts of Section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (entered into force on 15 March 2002, published in the Official Gazette no. 49 of 3 May 2002) read as follows:
(1) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...
(2) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph 1 of this Section is accepted, the Constitutional Court shall determine a time-limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits...
(3) In a decision under paragraph 2 of this Article, the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the State budget within a term of three months from the date when the party lodged a request for its payment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Supreme Court had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement.
2. He also complained under Article 13 about the lack of a remedy in respect of the length of proceedings.
3. The applicant furthermore invoked Article 35 of the Convention without any specification.
4. Finally, the applicant complained that the domestic courts had violated his right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
1. The applicant firstly complained that the Supreme Court had decided on his request for revision five years after it had been lodged with the court, which period had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time ...”
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 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of a remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority .......”
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 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice also of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
3. Insofar as the applicant raised, without further substantiation, a complaint under Article 35 of the Convention, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
4. Finally the applicant complained that the domestic courts had violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, the applicant has failed to raise such a complaint in his constitutional complaint. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning[Note1] the length of the civil proceedings and the right to an effective remedy in respect of those proceedings.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos ROZAKIS
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy