Communicated on 1 April 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 51472/12
Pavo SMOLIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 5 July 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavo Smolić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Stari Mikanovci. He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Šnur, a lawyer practising in Vinkovci.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 May 1988 the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru) awarded the applicant a lump sum in compensation of damages as well as monthly payments, in connection with a work related accident. The defendant in those proceedings was the state’s railway company Hrvatske željeznice.
On 24 December 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Hrvatske željeznice seeking the increase of above-mentioned monthly payments.
On 24 April 1991 the Vukovar Municipal Court partially accepted the applicant’s claim but on 16 August 1991 the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first-instance court.
On 23 January 2004 the first instance court adopted a judgment which was quashed again by the Vukovar County Court on 3 May 2005.
In these two sets of proceedings the first-instance court commissioned a report from an expert in accountancy on five occasions, in order to establish the value of the monthly payments sought by the applicant.
In a fresh round of proceedings, on 22 December 2008, the first-instance court commissioned a further report from an expert in accountancy and ordered the applicant to advance the related costs in the amount of 2,578 Croatian kunas (HRK).
On 15 January 2009 and 3 February 2009 the applicant asked for the exemption from payment of the costs for the expert witness claiming that, due his financial situation, given that his pension was HRK 2,313 and that his wife was unemployed and without any incomes, he was unable to pay these costs without putting at risk his own and his wife’s subsistence. He asked that these costs be covered from the first-instance court’s funds, a possibility envisaged by the Civil Procedure Act.
On 16 February 2009 the first-instance court adopted a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. In its reasoning the court stated that the Vukovar County Court in its decision from 11 November 2008 awarded the applicant with HRK 20,000 for the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time and that he could have paid the costs for the expert witness from that money.
The applicant appealed against the first–instance court’s judgment claiming that the amount awarded to him for the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time was paid to him on 13 March 2009, namely after the first–instance judgment had already been delivered.
On 4 February 2010 the second instance court upheld the first-instance judgment.
The applicant than lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) that the Supreme Court declared inadmissible on 10 January 2011.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court and on 11 July 2012 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that his right to a fair trial was violated when the domestic courts refused his request for the exemption from paying costs related to the expert witness’s report without considering any evidence about his financial situation, which led to dismissing his claim for damages.
2. He also complains that his right to a peaceful enjoyment of his possession was violated contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have access to court concerning his claim for damages, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy