Published on 17 October 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 18789/21
Branko KRUŠKOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 6 April 2021
communicated on 30 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns civil proceedings which the applicant, a person divested of his legal capacity, sought to institute against the State seeking damages for unlawful deprivation of liberty in 2013.
At the material time, the applicant’s legal guardian was a social worker. The applicant had informed the relevant Social Welfare Centre (“the Centre”) several times of his wish to institute civil proceedings against the State, but the latter failed to issue the requisite authorisation. Nonetheless, on 12 October 2016 the applicant’s attorney lodged the claim for damages on the applicant’s behalf, in order to prevent the claim from becoming time barred.
At a hearing held on 20 September 2017, the Centre stated that it had failed to issue an authorisation to institute the proceedings because neither they nor the applicant had the funds to cover possible costs of such proceedings. At the same time, the Centre was overburdened with cases, and it could not represent the applicant before the court. The applicant’s attorney then agreed to represent him pro bono.
However, on the same day the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible because his attorney had not provided a power of attorney issued by the applicant’s legal guardian.
The Centre issued the authorisation and the power of attorney to the applicant’s attorney on 3 November 2017, while his appeal had been pending. However, on 13 March 2018 the second instance court upheld the first instance decision, and the applicant’s subsequent extraordinary appeal on points of law was also dismissed.
On 23 September 2020 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded.
On 3 April 2018 the applicant had his legal capacity restored.
The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that he did not have access to court given that his claim was declared inadmissible due to the Centre’s failure to timely provide its authorisation for a power of attorney and because the courts applied the procedural rules with excessive formalism.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?