Communicated on 11 October 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 49281/15
Dragan KOVAČEVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 28 September 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dragan Kovačević, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Slatina. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Kušan, a lawyer practising in Ivanic Grad.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2012 the Slatina Social Welfare Centre instituted the proceedings in the Slatina Municipal Court, seeking that the applicant be divested of his legal capacity. On 5 March 2013 the Municipal Court divested the applicant of his legal capacity. This decision was upheld by the Bjelovar County Court.
The applicant then, represented by a lawyer lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the lower court’s decisions. He also sought costs of his legal representation before the Constitutional Court. On 20 May 2015 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant’s complaint and, relying on the Court’s case-law, found a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and quashed the lower courts’ decisions. No decision was adopted on the applicant’s request for costs of his legal representation before the Constitutional Court in the amount of 6,500 Croatian Kuna
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 §1 of the Convention that his right of access to court was violated and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his property rights were violated as well because, even though his constitutional complaint was successful, the Constitutional Court did not award him costs of his legal representation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right of access to court unduly restricted because he had to bear the costs of his legal representation before the Constitutional Court even though his constitutional complaint was accepted and the lower courts’ decision which the applicant challenged quashed? If so, did the restriction pursue a legitimate aim of ensuring the proper administration of justice and protecting the rights of others? If so, was the restriction proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, also on account of the fact that the he had to bear the costs of his legal representation before the Constitutional Court?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy