Communicated on 20 October 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 10149/13
SRPSKA PRAVOSLAVNA CRKVA
against Croatia
lodged on 13 December 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Srpska Pravoslavna Crkva (Serbian Orthodox Church, Eparchy of Dalmatia, Dragović Orthodox Monastery), is a church seated in Imotski. It is represented before the Court by Mr I. Mirošević, a lawyer practising in Split.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1997 the applicant church instituted administrative proceedings before the Sinj Office for Urban Planning, Environment, Construction and Property Affairs (Ured državne uprave u Splitsko-dalmatinskoj županiji, Služba za prostorno uređenje, zaštitu okoliša, graditeljstvo i imovinsko-pravne poslove, Ispostava Sinj; hereinafter the “Sinj Office”) seeking compensation for 164 plots of land confiscated from it in 1946.
On 22 April 1998 the Bylaw on criteria for determination of the value for appropriated agricultural land, forests and forestry land (Pravilnik o mjerilima za utvrđivanje vrijednosti oduzetog poljoprivrednog zemljišta, šuma i šumskog zemljišta, Official Gazette 58/98; hereinafter “1998 Bylaw”) entered into force regulating the criteria for determining the financial value of confiscated land.
On 8 July 2003 a hearing was held before the Sinj Office concerning the applicant’s request.
On 11 February 2004 a new Bylaw on criteria for determination of the value for appropriated agricultural land, forests and forestry land (Pravilnik o mjerilima za utvrđivanje vrijednosti oduzetog poljoprivrednog zemljišta, šuma i šumskog zemljišta, Official gazette 18/04; hereinafter “2004 Bylaw”) came into force reducing the amount of compensation for confiscated land. The new Bylaw in section 4 prescribed retrospective application of its provisions to all pending proceedings.
On 24 May 2004 the Sinj Office recognised the applicant church’s right to compensation awarding it 1,424,827.45 Croatian kunas (HRK).
The applicant church lodged an appeal with Ministry of Justice (Ministarstvo pravosuđa, Uprava za građansko pravo; hereinafter: the “Ministry”) contenting in particular that it would have been entitled to a higher amount of compensation had there not been a retrospective application of the relevant legislation.
On 3 April 2006 the Ministry, acting as a second-instance administrative body, dismissed the applicant church’s appeal as unfounded, upholding the decision of the Sinj Office as to the applicability of the 2004 Bylaw.
The applicant church brought an administrative action before the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the decisions of the lower administrative bodies.
On 29 September 2010 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant church’s action as unfounded on the grounds that first instance body properly applied the 2004 Bylaw.
On 15 March 2011 the Private-law Division of the Administrative Court (Imovinsko-pravni odjel Upravnog suda Republike Hrvatske) adopted an opinion according to which the courts in administrative proceedings are obliged to apply bylaws that are in force at the time when the proceedings were instituted irrespective of a subsequent legislation with a prescribed retrospective effect.
The applicant church than lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining that the retrospective application of the 2004 Bylaw adversely affected its property rights.
On 20 June 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 9 July 2012.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant church complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about an unjustified interference with its rights by the retrospective application of the relevant domestic legislation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant church have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a retrospective application of the relevant domestic legislation running counter to the requirements of a fair trial?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant church’s property rights by the retrospective application of the relevant domestic legislation, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant church’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy