FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32947/21
Lidija HORVAT
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 May 2026 as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Raffaele Sabato,
Artūrs Kučs, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the above application lodged on 18 June 2021;
the withdrawal of Mr Davor Derenčinović, the judge elected in respect of Croatia, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court);
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE1. The applicant, Ms Lidija Horvat, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Zagreb. She was represented before the Court by Ms S. Čanković, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. The applicant, who is a lawyer, had an outstanding monetary claim against M. in the amount of 13,025 Croatian kunas (HRK; equivalent to 1,729 euros) plus statutory default interest, as established by a final and enforceable judgment.
4. In July 2017 the Zagreb Municipal Court allowed an application for enforcement lodged by the applicant and adopted a writ of execution ordering enforcement by way of the sale of M.’s real estate. Subsequently, in October 2019 the court adopted a conclusion ordering the sale of the real estate by way of electronic public auction. The conclusion was served on the applicant’s representative on 23 October 2019 and forwarded to the Financial Agency (“the Agency”) in charge of the sale.
5. On 9 December 2019 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the Agency had informed that court of the applicant’s failure to pay the costs of the sale following an invitation to do so published on the Agency’s website on 28 October 2019, in accordance with section 132(d) of the Enforcement Act.
6. By a decision of 13 August 2020, the Rijeka County Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, in which she had argued that the invitation to pay the costs of the sale had never been served on her, including by way of publication on the Agency’s website. That court held that it had been established by the first-instance court that the invitation had been published on the Agency’s website on the day specified (see paragraph 5 above) and noted that, pursuant to section 132(b) of the Enforcement Act, a letter that had been published on the Agency’s website was to be considered to have been delivered to the persons concerned on the expiry of the eighth day following its publication.
7. By a decision of 1 December 2020, served on the applicant’s representative on 21 December 2020, the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant inadmissible on the ground that the impugned decision was not amenable to constitutional review.
8. Meanwhile, in September 2020 the Zagreb Municipal Court, acting upon the applicant’s request, ordered that a security interest on M.’s real estate be recorded in the land register for the full amount of the claim.
9. Before the Court, the applicant complained that the Rijeka County Court had not addressed her arguments that the invitation to pay the costs of the sale had never been published on the Agency’s website and that the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court had failed to verify that circumstance before terminating the enforcement. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
10. She further complained that the termination of the enforcement proceedings had breached her rights of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and peaceful enjoyment of her possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
11. Following communication of the application to the Government, in a factual update of 9 December 2024, the applicant informed the Court that she had signed an out-of-court settlement agreement with M., whereby she had accepted payment of the principal claim and of a part of the accrued default interest and had waived the remainder of her claim. Accordingly, she had lodged a motion with the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, requesting that the security interest on M.’s real estate be removed from the land register and the related security proceedings be terminated (see paragraph 8 above). Lastly, she stated that she maintained her complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention raised before the Court.
THE LAW12. The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its lists of cases. They argued that it was evident from the facts that the applicant had partly recovered her claim and had waived the remainder thereof, that she had accordingly requested removal of the security interest, and that she had ceased to pursue her complaint concerning the alleged violation of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. Therefore, the Government proposed to the Court to strike out that part of the application pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. With regard to the remainder of the application, the Government argued that it was no longer justified to continue its examination, inasmuch it concerned the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, and they invited the Court to strike it out pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
13. The applicant maintained that signing the settlement agreement had remained the only avenue at her disposal to obtain payment of her claim, at least in part. Furthermore, she argued that, should the Court establish that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, she might be awarded just satisfaction and, as a general measure, the Croatian Government could propose amendments to the relevant legislation with the aim of preventing any future violations.
14. The Court observes that in her factual update of 9 December 2024 and in her subsequent submissions of 14 January 2025 submitted in reply to those of the Government, the applicant, who is a lawyer and is also represented by one, expressly stated that she maintained only her complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 11 above; compare and contrast Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 41, 24 October 2002). In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the complaint under Article 13 has already been declared inadmissible in an earlier stage of the proceedings before it, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the application in so far as it concerns this complaint. Accordingly, it decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases.
15. As regards the complaints concerning reasoned judgment and access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court finds it appropriate to first ascertain whether the fact that the applicant had first signed the settlement agreement with M. and subsequently requested the removal of the security interest on M.’s real estate from the land register (see paragraph 11 above) may lead it to conclude that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (see, for example, Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 76642/01, §§ 29 and 36, ECHR 2006‑XIV) and whether this part of application may consequently be struck out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
16. The Court reiterates that it enjoys a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied upon in striking out an application on this basis, it being understood, however, that such grounds must reside in the particular circumstances of each case (ibid., § 37; see also Oya Ataman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 47738/99, § 24, 22 May 2007).
17. In the present case, the Court observes that by signing the settlement agreement, the applicant and M. resolved their dispute and established their mutual rights and obligations as set out in section 150 of the Civil Obligations Act. Accordingly, the applicant accepted partial payment of her initial claim and waived the remainder thereof (see paragraph 11 above). The Court is satisfied that this agreement is in line with the applicant’s interests, seeing as she signed it (compare Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry, cited above, § 38). Furthermore, it observes that the applicant subsequently requested that the security interest recorded in the land register on M.’s real estate for the full amount of the claim be removed (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above), from which it may be inferred that she no longer intended to seek its payment before the domestic courts. The Court thus cannot but note a certain contradiction in the attitude of the applicant, who nevertheless wishes the Court to pursue the examination of complaints on the basis of the impossibility of her having access to such proceedings (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry, cited above, § 38). Lastly, the Court takes note of the Government’s argument that, with regard to any damage that the applicant may have suffered on account of the Agency’s allegedly unlawful conduct, she had at her disposal an effective domestic remedy, namely separate civil proceedings for compensation.
18. In view of the circumstances above and to the extent that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are concerned, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (ibid., § 39).
19. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue its examination of the present application. In particular, with regard to the applicant’s arguments for opposing the striking-out of the application (see paragraph 13 above), the Court notes that it was not the content of the relevant legislation as such but primarily the manner in which it had been applied in the applicant’s case which gave rise to her complaints under the Convention (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above; compare Mraović v. Croatia (striking out) [GC], no. 30373/13, § 27, 9 April 2021). Furthermore, the Court has already dealt with similar issues in other cases before it (see, for example, Zavodnik v. Slovenia, no. 53723/13, §§ 69-82, 21 May 2015, and compare Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 51, 30 March 2009). In view of the findings above, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of these complaints. They should therefore also be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2026.
Liv Tigerstedt Erik Wennerström
Deputy Registrar President