Communicated on 1 September 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 11388/15
Jela GLAVINIĆ against Croatia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
statement of facts
The applicants are Croatian nationals, with the exception of the third applicant (application no. 22279/15) who is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The applicants’ personal details, the names of their representatives and the details regarding the length of the impugned proceedings are indicated the table annexed below.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were parties to the civil (applications no. 11388/15 and 22279/15) and enforcement proceedings (applications no. 20206/15 and 33590/15).
On an unspecified date the applicants resorted to purely acceleratory length-of-proceedings remedy under the 2013 Courts Act. In particular, the applicants lodged requests for protection of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the presidents of the courts before which their proceedings were pending. Their requests were granted and the court presidents ordered judges hearing their cases to give decisions or complete the enforcement within specific time-limits.
Since those time-limits were not complied with, the applicants resorted to combined (acceleratory-compensatory) remedy under the 2013 Courts Act; namely, they sought compensation before the higher court. The applicants’ claims were granted save for the applicant’s claim in application no. 22279/15, which was dismissed.
The applicants’ further appeals to the Supreme Court were all dismissed.
None of the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the Supreme Court’s decisions.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, §§ 22-27, 7 July 2016, and Vrtar v. Croatia, no. 39380/13, §§ 63-64 and 78, 7 January 2016.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil or enforcement proceedings. In particular, the applicant in application no. 22279/15 complains that he was not awarded any compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings whereas the remaining applicants complain that the domestic courts awarded them insufficient compensation.
2. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 22279/15 alleges further that he was denied an effective remedy in respect of his complaint concerning the excessive length of proceedings.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Were the applicants required to lodge constitutional complaints against the Supreme Court’s decisions in their cases in order to (fully) exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Under the case-law of the Constitutional Court are such decisions open to constitutional review by means of individual constitutional complaint?
2. If the applicants were not required to lodge constitutional complaints, was the length of the proceedings in their cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
and the
date of
introduction
Applicant name
date of birth and
the place of residence
Represented by
Type of proceedings
Period to be taken into consideration (and number of instances)
Awarded
11388/15
27/02/2015
Jela GLAVINIĆ
14/04/1947
Rijeka
Vladimir MARGAN
Civil
proceedings
Eleven years and five months
before one instance
130
20206/15
21/04/2015
Maša KOCIJAN
08/10/1990
Belica
Nevenka HLEBAR
Enforcement proceedings
(for recovery of child support)
Nine years and six months
652
22279/15
30/04/2015
Zurahid BRIČIĆ
27/03/1969
Gradačac
Dražen
ŠTIVIĆ
Civil proceedings
Ten years and eleven months
before three instances
N/A
33590/15
18/06/2015
Domeniko JOVANOVIĆ
20/12/1950
Rijeka
Vladimir MARGAN
Enforcement proceedings
Fourteen years and one month
1,040
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy