FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7291/15
Marin MIŠE
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 December 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 January 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Marin Miše, is a Croatian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Slatine. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Drča, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Principal proceedings
4. On 12 July 2010 the applicant brought a civil action in Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) against an insurance company, seeking to obtain compensation for damage sustained in a road traffic accident.
5. On 17 November 2010 the case was transferred to Trogir Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Trogiru).
6. By a judgment of 25 January 2015 the Municipal Court ruled for the applicant in part.
7. By a judgment of 24 August 2016 Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) reversed the first-instance judgment in part and upheld it in part. It awarded the applicant 5,890 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and HRK 1,444.83 for pecuniary damage, together with the accrued statutory default interest, as well as HRK 7,938.50 in costs. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim. By a further decision of 7 December 2016 the County Court awarded the applicant an additional HRK 5,716 in costs.
2. Proceedings following the use of remedies for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time
8. Meanwhile, on 1 September 2014 the applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the President of Trogir Municipal Court – a purely acceleratory remedy under the 2013 Courts Act.
9. On 27 October 2014 the president decided that the applicant’s request was well-founded. He ordered the judge hearing the case to give a decision in the above-mentioned civil proceedings within ten months.
10. Since that time-limit had not been complied with, on 4 September 2015 the applicant lodged a request with Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) for payment of appropriate compensation – a combined compensatory and acceleratory remedy under the 2013 Courts Act.
11. By a decision of 1 February 2016 the County Court awarded the applicant HRK 300[1] in compensation for the violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
12. Relevant domestic law and practice are set out in Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, §§ 22-26, 7 July 2016.
COMPLAINTS
13. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the above-mentioned civil proceedings.
14. The applicant also complained, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that the remedies he had resorted to in order to complain of the excessive length of the civil proceedings described above (see paragraphs 4‑7) had been ineffective.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
15. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in his case had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in the relevant part reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
16. The Government contested the admissibility of this complaint on two grounds. They argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, in that he had not appealed against Split County Court’s decision of 1 February 2016 (see paragraph 10 above) nor lodged a constitutional complaint under section 62 or 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. The Government further averred that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of which he complained.
17. The Court notes that the applicant lodged a request for payment of appropriate compensation – a combined compensatory and acceleratory remedy under the 2013 Courts Act – which the Court has recognised as effective (see Novak v. Croatia (dec.), cited above, §§ 56-57). However, he did not properly exhaust that remedy because he did not appeal to the Supreme Court against Split County Court’s decision of 1 February 2016 (see paragraph 10 above).
18. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
19. In view of this conclusion, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s remaining inadmissibility objection (see paragraph 16 above).
B. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
20. The applicant complained that the remedies of which he had availed himself to complain of the protracted length of the above-mentioned civil proceedings had proved ineffective. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
21. Relying on their arguments set out above (see paragraph 16), the Government disputed the admissibility of this complaint, arguing that it was manifestly ill-founded.
22. The Court refers to its findings set out above, according to which the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraphs 17-18 above).
23. It follows that this complaint is also inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 January 2019.
Renata DegenerTim Eicke
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1]. Approximately, 40 euros (EUR) at the time.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy