Communicated on 23 May 2019
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 22567/18
Nives MOROVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 3 May 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the impossibility by the applicant to challenge before a court the decision of a State agency dismissing her request to be awarded funding for her agricultural project. According to the applicant, the alleged denial of the right of access to a court is a result of a domestic provision setting out that the decision of the State agency concerning awarding the funding is not an administrative act and cannot thus be challenged before the Administrative Court.
In its decision no. Usl-3478/13-4 of 13 January 2014, the Zagreb Administrative Court held that the decision concerning awarding the funding was “an individual decision by which a public authority decided on the right of a party, but for which the [relevant law] expressly provided that it was not an administrative act, which is why the [administrative] action [lodged against it] was to be declared inadmissible”. In its decision no. U‑III-719/2014 of 13 July 2016, the Constitutional Court held that since the relevant law provided that the decision concerning awarding the funding was not an administrative act the restriction of the right of access to a court was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim.
The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the alleged denial of the right of access to a court regarding the decision of the State agency concerning awarding funding for agricultural projects is not justified and that Croatia is the only European Union Member State which does not allow judicial protection in such matter.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, was there a “dispute” over a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have access to a court to contest the decision whereby her request to be awarded funding for her agricultural project was dismissed?
3. In the negative, was the denial of access to a court justified in the applicant’s case? In particular, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy