FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 73564/01
by Stjepan MUŽENJAK
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 April 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2001,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stjepan Muženjak, is a Croatian ctitizen, who was born in 1942 and lives in Suhopolje, Croatia. He was represented before the Court by Mr Boris Kozjak, a lawyer practising in Virovitica, Croatia. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Ms Lidija Lukina-Karajković.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 1 July 1993 the applicant filed a civil action before the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) against insurance company C seeking compensation for injuries that he had sustained in a road accident. He claimed in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and asked for the compensation to include payment of a monthly sum.
Before the period to be taken into account the Court of first instance held a number of hearings, ordered a medical report and on 22 February 1994 gave a partial judgment granting most of the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage.
The applicant’s appeal was partially granted by the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) which revised the first instance judgment on 5 May 1994.
The applicant then filed a request for revision and on 21 November 1996 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) increased the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On 21 April 1998 the Virovitica Municipal Court held a hearing, thus continuing the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for a monthly sum. The applicant quantified his claim, seeking an amount of 450,00 Croatian Kunas (HRK) monthly from 10 August 1992 to 30 September 1993; HRK 600,00 from 1 October 1993 to 31 December 1994; HRK 800,00 from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995; HRK 900,00 from 1 January 1996 to 28 February 1997 and HRK 825,00 from 1 March 1997 on.
At the hearing on 11 November 1998 the court heard the applicant so as to establish his income for the relevant periods, including the unemployment and sick leave benefits and his income during temporary employment. The Court asked one of the applicant’s former employers and the Croatian Pension and Invalidity Fund for documentation concerning the applicant’s income for January and March 1997.
At the hearing on 21 April 1999 it was established that the court had not received the requested documentation.
On 30 April 1999 the applicant’s counsel submitted the requested documentation.
On 26 May 1999 the case was transferred to another judge because the previous judge had been temporarily placed to another court.
At the hearing on 15 June 1999 the court again heard the applicant and partially granted the applicant’s claim for a monthly sum.
The defendant appealed against the judgment and on 30 September 1999 the Bjelovar County Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-trial. It instructed the Virovitica Municipal Court to establish the exact amount of the monthly payments because it was not clear what income the applicant had received from different sources in the relevant periods.
At the hearing on 7 December 1999 the Virovitica Municipal Court asked the Employment Board (Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje) for documentation concerning the applicant’s income in various periods.
The case was then transferred back to the previous judge who had returned to the Virovitica Municipal Court.
On an unspecified date the Employment Board submitted the requested documentation.
On 2 March 2000 the court asked the Pension Fund (Zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje) for documentation concerning the applicant’s invalidity pension. It also asked the County Statistics Office (Županijski ured za statistiku) for the amount of an average salary in Croatia.
The relevant documentation was submitted on 8 and 13 March 2000 respectively.
On 19 April 2000 the applicant again specified his claim.
At the hearing on 23 May 2000 the court concluded the proceedings.
However, on 21 June 2000 the court re-opened the proceedings and ordered that an expertise be carried out so as to establish the applicant’s possible income as a temporary seasonal worker.
At the next hearing on 7 September 2000 the court ordered the applicant to pay an advance for the cost of the expertise.
On 21 September 2000 the applicant paid the advance.
On 10 October 2000 the court appointed an expert.
On 3 November 2000 the appointed expert submitted his report.
In January 2001 the case was transferred to another judge because the previous judge was again placed to another court.
On 2 February 2001 the applicant’s counsel asked the court to speed up the proceedings.
At the hearing on 29 March 2001 the court heard the expert and asked the Poljoprivreda Suhopolje firm to inform it whether they had employed unqualified workers after 10 August 1992 and what was their salary.
On 11 April and 2 May 2001 the requested information was submitted.
The court then asked the Pension Fund for documentation concerning all payments to the applicant from that Fund.
On 11 June 2001 the requested documentation was submitted.
At the hearing on 11 September 2001 the court again heard the applicant and concluded the proceedings.
On 2 October 2001 the court gave judgment partially awarding the applicant’s claim.
The defendant appealed against the judgment.
On 1 February 2002 the Bjelovar County Court upheld the judgment and thus the proceedings ended.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings have been incompatible with the “reasonable time” principle, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government contest that argument.
As to the complexity of the case, the Government submit that the courts had to decide on the applicant’s claim for lost income. In that respect the Government argue that the case was very complex because it was necessary to establish the applicant’s income as a temporary seasonal worker as well as the income he received from various different sources. Furthermore, since it was established that the applicant, had he not been injured, would have obtained permanent employment in the Poljoprivreda Suhopolje, the courts had to determine what would have been the applicant’s income in that case.
As to the applicant’s behaviour, they contend that he did not submit the relevant documentation so the courts had to seek it from the relevant authorities. Furthermore, he changed his claim several times.
As to the behaviour of the domestic authorities, the Government submit that the courts in civil cases are bound by the requests of the parties. They point out that before the period to be taken into account by the Court, the case was examined before three instances and a partial judgment was adopted. As to the period after 5 November 1997, the Government submit that the domestic courts examined the case before two instances within a period of about four years.
The applicant argues that the length of the proceedings was excessive and entirely attributable to the domestic authorities.
The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the application raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible without prejudging the merits of the case.
Søren NIELSENChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy