FIRST SECTION
Application no. 22980/09
Mehmedalija OMEROVIĆ and Sanmir OMEROVIC
against Croatia
lodged on 19 March 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Mehmedalija Omerović, and the second applicant, Mr Sanmir Omerović, are two Croatian nationals, who were born in 1945 and 1971 respectively and live in Slatina.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant is an attorney-at-law practising in Slatina, Croatia.
In 2002 the first applicant lodged a civil action in the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) on his behalf and as a representative of the second applicant against the Virovitičko-Podravska County (Županija Virovitičko-podravska), against the State and certain A.K. as well as an insurance company C.O. claiming damages concerning an alleged physical attack by A.K.
On 3 June 2004 the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed the applicants’ civil action as ill-founded.
Against the above judgment the applicants lodged an appeal with the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici) and on 2 March 2006 that court upheld the first instance judgment concerning the merits and quashed it ordering re-examination of the decision relating to the costs and expenses.
On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision by which the first-instance judgment of the Virovitica Municipal Court was upheld.
The Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law as ill-founded on 29 October 2008.
On 11 March 2010 the Virovitica Municipal Court ordered the first applicant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings in the total amount of 439,303 Croatian kunas and the second applicant in the total amount of 233,797 Croatian kunas.
On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicants lodged an appeal before the Virovitica County Court against the decision concerning the costs and expenses.
On 9 September 2010 the Virovitica County Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance decision. In its decision, the Virovitica County Court noted that the applicants were represented by the first applicant, an attorney-at-law practising in Slatina.
Against the above decision of the Virovitica County Court the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
On 17 November 2010 the Supreme Court declared the applicants’ appeal on points of law inadmissible on the ground of lack of locus standi. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“Under Section 91(a) § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ... a party to the proceedings may lodge an appeal on points of law only through a representative who is an attorney-at-law. Under Section 91(a) § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as an exception to § 1, ... the party may lodge an appeal on points of law himself only if he has passed the bar exam, or through a representative ... who is not an attorney-at-law if that representative has passed the bar exam. Under Section 91(a) § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure the party, or his representative under § 1 of this Section, are obliged to submit an original or a copy of the bar exam certificate ...
In the case at issue the first plaintiff Mehmedalija Omerović lodged an appeal on points of law himself, namely, not through a representative who is an attorney-at-law and therefore, under Section 91(a) § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure he was obliged to submit a bar exam certificate since an original or a certified copy of such certificate was never submitted to the case file.
Namely, this court finds that the first plaintiff Mehmedalija Omerović as a representative of the second plaintiff Sanmir Omerović has never submitted an original or a certified copy of the bar exam certificate during the proceedings or together with their appeal on points of law, although he is obliged to do so under Section 91(a) § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) and on 19 May 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint inadmissible. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicants on 6 June 2011.
In the meantime, the applicants lodged a request for reinstatement of the appeal on points of law proceedings before the Virovitica Municipal Court submitting the first applicant’s bar exam certificate. On 13 January 2011 the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed their request for reinstatement of the proceedings as ill-founded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain, invoking Articles 2, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 4, about the outcome of the civil proceedings and lack of access to the Supreme Court.
QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have access to the Supreme Court (see Bąkowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, § 45, 12 January 2010)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy