Communicated on 16 December 2013
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 25782/11
Zita KARDOŠ
against Croatia
lodged on 11 April 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Zita Kardoš, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Zagreb. She is represented before the Court by Ms E. Predovan, a lawyer practising in Zadar.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
The applicant was a co-owner of a block of flats on the island of Vir. On 2 March and 23 March 2006 the building inspectors of the Inspectorate of the Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Development and Construction (Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša, prostornog uređenja i graditeljstva, Uprava za inspekcijske poslove) carried out an in situ inspection of the block of flats in question.
2. Administrative proceedings concerning the demolition order
On 31 March 2006 the building inspector ordered that within three days from the date of service of his decision the block of flats belonging to the applicant and other co-owners be demolished. The applicant appealed against that decision, submitting that the time-limit for compliance had been too short and that the block of flats was not within the protected coastal area.
On 15 May 2006 the Second-Instance Proceedings Unit in the Legal Department of the Inspectorate of the Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Development and Construction (Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša, prostornog uređenja i graditeljstva, Uprava za inspekcijske poslove, Odjel za pravne poslove, Odsjek za postupak u drugom stupnju) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, arguing that the block of flats had been built without a building permit.
3. Administrative enforcement proceedings
Meanwhile, on 4 May 2006 the building inspector issued an administrative enforcement order (zaključak o dozvoli izvršenja), stating that his demolition order had become enforceable on 6 April 2006 and that the co-owners had not complied with it within the given time-limit. He therefore ordered the demolition by a third party after 11 May 2006 at the expense of the co-owners. The applicant appealed against that decision, submitting that the decision was not sufficiently reasoned and that the construction of the block of flats could be retrospectively approved.
On 23 May 2006 the Second-Instance Proceedings Unit in the Legal Department of the Inspectorate of the Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Development and Construction dismissed the applicant’s appeal as without merit.
On 27 June 2006 the co-owners had the block of flats demolished.
4. Administrative dispute and the constitutional complaint
Meanwhile, on 26 June 2006 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint, repeating her arguments from both above-mentioned appeals and seeking damages caused by the demolition.
Since it was not clear whether the applicant was complaining about the second-instance decision concerning the demolition order or the administrative enforcement, on 11 July 2006 the Administrative Court requested that the applicant name one of the two second-instance decisions against which she wished to pursue her complaint.
On 30 August 2006 the applicant replied that she was asking for annulment of the second-instance decision of 15 May 2006 concerning the demolition order.
On 22 April 2010 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as without merit. However, the Administrative Court addressed the applicant’s complaint as if it had been lodged against the second-instance decision of 23 May 2006 concerning the administrative enforcement.
On 13 July 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging, inter alia, a violation of her right of access to court since the Administrative Court had erroneously decided on a matter which had not been the subject of her administrative complaint.
On 13 December 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible, on the grounds that the contested decisions had not concerned the merits of the case and as such were not amenable to constitutional review.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, by failing to decide on the merits of her action, the Administrative Court breached her right of access to court.
The applicant also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, of the lack of an effective remedy against the second-instance decision of 15 May 2006 and the failure of the Constitutional Court to examine the merits of her complaint.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been able to contest the decision of the Ministry of Environment, Zoning and Construction UP/II-362-02/06-04/1315, no. 531-07-2-1-2-06-2 of 15 May 2006 before the domestic courts? In the negative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies against the decision of the Ministry of Environment, Zoning and Construction UP/II-362-02/06-04/1315, no. 531-07-2-1-2-06-2 of 15 May 2006 and for her complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy