Communicated on 21 October 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 24079/11
Ivana JUREŠA
against Croatia
lodged on 23 March 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ivana Jureša, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Osijek. She is represented before the Court by Darko Šuper, a lawyer in the Šuper, Kovačev and Rabar law office from Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 July 2007 M.J., a relative of the applicant, lodged a civil action against the applicant in the Zabok Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zaboku) asking that court to establish his share of an inherited plot of land in one half and to order the applicant to allow him to register that share of ownership of the flat in the land registry. He set out the value of his claim at 110,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).
On 25 April 2008 the Zabok Municipal Court adopted a judgment granting M.J.’s civil claim in total.
The applicant appealed this judgment before the Zlatar County Court (Županijski sud u Zlataru) and on 16 September 2009 the Zlatar County Court dismissed her appeal as ill-founded upholding the first-instance judgment.
On 24 November 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the lower courts’ judgments. It appears that thus far in the proceedings Mr M.J.’s indication of the value of his claim had not been questioned at any level.
On 27 May 2010 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible as incompatible ratione valoris. It interpreted M.J.’s civil claim as two separate actions: one, for the establishment of his share of the plot of land; and the other, for obtaining an order securing the registration in the land registry of his ownership in that share. The Supreme Court thus divided the value of the claim by half and held that such value did not reach the necessary ratione valoris threshold of HRK 100,000 (approximately EUR 13,700) for an appeal on points of law.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) arguing that M.J.’s claim had two aspects which could not be separated from one another, and that therefore the Supreme Court’s decision finding that the case concerned two separate claims had been unreasonable.
On 17 February 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 3 March 2011.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that she did not have access to the Supreme Court.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have access to the Supreme Court in the civil proceedings determining her civil rights and obligations, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, did the Supreme Court’s decision of 27 May 2010 dismissing her appeal on points of law on the grounds of ratione valoris entail a limitation of her right of access to a court that was incompatible with that provision (see, for example, Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, §§ 32-33, 2 November 2006; Balažoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 45117/08, §§ 29-34, 25 April 2013; and Egić v. Croatia, no. 32806/09, §§ 50-59, 5 June 2014)? In that connection, on what basis did the Supreme Court reach its conclusion regarding the estimated value of the dispute claim?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy