Communicated on 31 March 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 1605/14
Ivan GOGIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 18 December 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivan Gogić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Kušan, a lawyer practising in Ivanić Grad.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 January 2003 the applicant signed a contract as a professional basketball player (hereinafter “the contract”) with basketball club D. (hereinafter “the club”).
In 2005 the applicant asked the Competition Committee of the Croatian Basketball Federation (Povjerenstvo za natjecanje Hrvatskog košarkaškog saveza, hereinafter “the Committee”) to cancel his contract and that he be paid what he was owed for playing.
On 18 July 2005 the Committee approved the applicant’s request, cancelled the contract and ordered the club to pay the applicant 14,500 euros (EUR) or 105,995 Croatian kunas (HRK). The Committee held in particular that, given that the parties to the contract had failed to determine the amount of remuneration, it should be equivalent to the minimum annual remuneration guaranteed by section 20 of the Regulation on the Status of Basketball Players, namely EUR 6,000. In view of the fact that the applicant had played for the club for two years and five months, the Committee decided that the club had to pay the applicant EUR 14,500, or HRK 105,995.
The club lodged an appeal against the decision of 18 July 2005 with the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Basketball Federation and on 29 July 2005 that court upheld the decision of 18 July 2005.
On 23 September 2008 the applicant brought a civil action before the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) against the club, seeking payment of 14,500 EUR or HRK 105,995 because the club had failed to comply with the decision of the Court of Arbitration.
On 8 June 2010 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, while declining jurisdiction in favour of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), held that the decision of the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Basketball Federation was an enforceable title (ovršna isprava). The first-instance court also held that his claim represented in substance an application for the enforcement of the decision of the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Basketball Federation, namely an enforceable arbitration award (ovršna odluka arbitražnog suda).
Upon appeal by the defendant, on 20 March 2012 the Zagreb County Court quashed the first-instance court’s decision and declared the claim inadmissible on the grounds of res judicata. It agreed with the first-instance court’s conclusion that decisions of the Croatian Basketball Federation were enforceable arbitration awards. However, the second-instance court held that the applicant’s claim could not be considered as an application for enforcement and that it should be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata. It also ordered the applicant to pay the club HRK 11,459.50 in costs. That decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 June 2012.
On 6 July 2012, relying on the Zagreb County Court’s decision, the applicant lodged an application with that court, sitting as a court of first instance, for enforcement of the decision of the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Basketball Federation.
On 11 September 2012 the Zagreb County Court issued an enforcement order against the club, as the debtor.
The club then lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and on 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court quashed the enforcement order and declared the application for the enforcement inadmissible. It held that the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Basketball Federation was not an arbitration tribunal within the meaning of the Act on Arbitration and the Execution Act. That being so, the decision of the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Basketball Federation was not a valid title for enforcement and could not be directly enforced.
On 14 February 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint and on 20 June 2013 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 10 July 2013.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic decisions deprived him of his right of access to court.
He also complains that the domestic courts violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s right of access to court violated, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary and proportionate?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy