FIRST SECTION
Application no. 13006/13
Marija IVINOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 11 January 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Marija Ivinović, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mrs M. Savić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the Pešćenica Social Welfare Centre (hereinafter “the Centre”) asked the Zagreb Municipal Court to institute proceedings with a view to divesting the applicant of legal capacity.
On 28 October 2009 the Centre appointed its employee, Ms J.T., as the applicant’s guardian ad litem in the proceedings at issue.
During the proceedings the applicant was heard and it was established that “she gave meaningful answers; stressed that she functioned autonomously, kept her flat tidy, prepared her meals and was provided help by her son and a tenant. The reason why she had not paid some bills in 2002 had been her hospitalisation.”
In her written submissions the applicant explained that during her hospitalisation she had empowered her son to retrieve money from her bank account and pay the utility bills, which he had not done but had instead taken the money for himself.
On 21 October 2010 the Zagreb Municipal Court partially divested the applicant of her legal capacity, banning her from disposing with her money and other assets and from making independent decisions concerning her medical treatment. The decision relied exclusively on the opinion given by two psychiatrists.
The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Bjelovar County Court on 26 January and her subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 13 June 2012.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of fairness in the proceedings for divesting her partly of her legal capacity.
She also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that by not establishing all relevant facts in these proceedings the national courts violated her right to respect for her private life.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations concerning her legal capacity, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
The Government are invited to submit two copies of all relevant case-files.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy