Communicated on 20 May 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 40562/12
Iva EZGETA
against Croatia
lodged on 24 May 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Iva Ezgeta, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Novigrad. She is represented before the Court by Mr J. Kalabrić, a lawyer practising in Poreč.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 October 2000 a company P.G. from Slovenia instituted civil proceedings before the Buje Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Bujama) in which it sought that the data concerning the size of certain plots of land be corrected in land registry of that court. In its civil action it indicated the value of the claim at 5,000 Croatian kuna (HRK).
On an unknown date the applicant joined the plaintiff in the proceedings as an intervener since she had bought some of the plots at issue.
At the hearing on 14 June 2001 the plaintiff indicated the value of the claim at HRK 105,000.
On 25 February 2005 the Buje Municipal Court awarded the claim.
The defendant lodged an appeal and on 5 February 2007 the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted a case for a fresh examination.
On 26 May 2009 the first-instance court dismissed the claim as unfounded. On the bottom of the last page of that judgment it is written that the case was conducted and the judgment was drafted by the court administrator (sudski savjetnik) J.G.
The applicant lodged an appeal complaining, inter alia, that her case was heard and decided by a court administrator who was not authorized to conduct the impugned proceedings under the relevant procedural rules. She also complained about the assessment of the amount of the litigation costs. The applicant was of the opinion that the value of dispute was the one indicated in the civil action, namely HRK 5,000, which should have been taken into account by the first-instance court when calculating the costs.
On 18 October 2010 the Pula County Court upheld the first-instance judgment. It held, inter alia, that the value of dispute was the one indicated at the hearing on 14 June 2001, namely HRK 105,000.
The applicant than lodged an appeal on points of law. However, on 14 October 2011 the Supreme Court declared her appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris considering that the value of the claim did not reach the statutory threshold. It held that the value of dispute was the one indicated in the civil action even though the lower courts found that value to be significantly higher when calculating the costs of the proceedings.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 29 March 2012.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complains that she was deprived of her right of access to the Supreme Court when that court declared her appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris.
She also complains that her case was not heard and decided by a tribunal established by law as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the manner in which the Supreme Court applied provisions of the Civil Procedure Act on the value of the claim deprive the applicant of access to the Supreme Court?
2. Was the applicant’s case heard and decided by a tribunal established by law as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy