FIRST SECTION
Application no. 679/11
Ivica SOLOMUN
against Croatia
lodged on 26 November 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivica Solomun, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Sisak. He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Posavčić, a lawyer practising in Kutina.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
On 15 June 1993 the applicant took employment with the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department (Policijska uprava sisačko-moslavačka) as a police officer. On 15 December 1993 he was assigned to the Traffic Unit of the Sisak Police Department (Policijska postaja Sisak).
On 1 January 1998 the applicant was appointed to the position of the Head of the Dvor Police Station (zapovjednik policijske postaje Dvor).
On 29 July 2000 the Amendments to the Act on the Area of Special State Concern (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o području od posebne državne skrbi) entered into force. They introduced three cumulative requirements for persons eligible to receive a salary supplement: a registered residence (prebivalište), a habitual residence (boravak) and a place of employment in the Area of Special State Concern.
On 3 May 2001 the applicant was transferred back to the Sisak Police Department.
Dvor is a town in the Area of Special State Concern.
2. Civil proceedings
On 29 September 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Republic of Croatia - Ministry of Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova) in the Kutina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kutini), seeking payment of the salary supplement in accordance with the Act on the Area of Special State Concern.
On 28 November 2000 the Kutina Municipal Court relinquished the jurisdiction of the case to the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Hrvatskoj Kostajnici).
On 2 October 2003 the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s action and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 67,214.69 Croatian kuna (HRK), together with the statutory interest, on account of the salary supplement for the period between 1 February 1998 and 1 May 2001, and HRK 7,978.80 on account of the costs of the proceedings.
By a judgment of 26 February 2004 the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) dismissed the defendant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
3. Enforcement proceedings
On 11 April 2004 the applicant instituted the enforcement proceedings in the Kutina Municipal Court against the Ministry of Interior, on the basis of the above- mentioned final judgment adopted in the civil proceedings.
On 19 April 2004 the Kutina Municipal Court issued an enforcement order.
On 26 April 2004 the applicant received full payment of the amount due to him.
4. Proceedings following the request for the protection of legality
On 20 May 2004 the State Attorney (Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske) lodged a request for the protection of legality with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against a part of the final judgment in which the applicant was awarded HRK 19,238.59 for the period between 11 August 2000 and 1 May 2001. The State Attorney claimed that in that period the applicant’s habitual residence was in Sisak and not in the Area of Special State Concern, so he was not entitled to the salary supplement. Moreover, the Ministry of Interior was at the time paying his travel expenses from Sisak to Dvor.
On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court accepted the request for the protection of legality, quashed a part of the second-instance judgment and remitted the case.
On 7 December 2006 the Sisak County Court accepted the defendant’s appeal and partially overturned the judgment of the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court.
On 14 May 2007 the Sisak Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked the applicant to repay HRK 19,238.59, together with the statutory interest.
The applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision of the Supreme Court and the fresh judgment of the Sisak County Court was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 29 pril 2010.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the violation of the principle of rule of law and his right to a fair trial, as a result of quashing of a part of the final judgment by way of the supervisory review.
The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the quashing of a part of the final judgment and the fresh judgment of the Sisak County Court amounted to a disproportionate interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of rule of law respected when a part of the final judgment in applicant’s favour had been quashed upon a request for the protection of legality lodged by the State Attorney’s Office?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, as a consequence of the quashing of a part of the final judgment in his favour?
If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?
In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy